|
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
|
| |
| |
On 17 Feb 2004 18:27:35 -0800, Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote:
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th?
No, it doesn't work that way.
But I will say that, at common law, one usually achieves an age the
day *before* one's birthday. So, if you were born on March 10, 1983,
you are considered (at common law) to be 21 years of age on March 9,
2004. (This is because common law does not recognize fractions of a
day.)
(And I don't know if California follows the common law rule.)
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
For the purposes of buying alcohol, cigarettes, etc., you became a particular
age on the anniversary of the day you were born (an instant after midnight, if
you wanna get that precise.) Leap days are only considered if you were born on
February 29th.
*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****
|
| |
| |
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
Sorry. The generally accepted meaning of 'year' in law (and everywhere else)
is a solar year, which is just shy of 365 1/4 days and the basis for the
civil calendar used in much of the world. I would imagine that most lawyers
would say that you will be 21 years old on your 21st birthday but IANAL.
Please celebrate carefully.
--
John D. Goulden
|
| |
| |
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
In your case for buying alcohol, it is based upon a standard calendar year
regardless of leap years.
You've waited 21 years to do it legally, what's few days worth to you?
|
| |
| |
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402171827.71824425@posting.google.com>...
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
Nice try, but a year is not, so far as I can tell, defined in any
particular way and so has its common meaning. A year is simply a year
from birthday to birthday, no matter how many days are in that
particular year. You're 21 on March 10, 2004.
Drink one for the poor fellows born on February 29, 1984. They won't
be 21 until March 1, 2005.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote in message news:<t7p5301fvvs7a3iskoe1f7munsmgbhajo1@4ax.com>...
On 17 Feb 2004 18:27:35 -0800, Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote:
No, it doesn't work that way.
But I will say that, at common law, one usually achieves an age the
day *before* one's birthday. So, if you were born on March 10, 1983,
you are considered (at common law) to be 21 years of age on March 9,
2004. (This is because common law does not recognize fractions of a
day.)
(And I don't know if California follows the common law rule.)
I did find Family Code 6500, which specifies that for determining the
day on which one is no longer a minor, you start with the first minute
on the day you were born and count one year on the first minute of the
corresponding day each year. Thus the OP is 21 on March 10, 2004 at
12:01 AM by that rule. It doesn't say what the "corresponding day" for
somebody born on February 29 is in a non-leap year, but common sense
would make it March 1 rather than February 28.
The common-law rule Dan cites does not seem to be applied in
California. Alcoholic beverage sellers and law enforcement go by the
birthday rule: you are 21 on your 21st birthday, for the OP March 10,
2004. Driver's licenses and identification cards issued to minors
under 21 are prominently marked to that effect.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Christopher Green wrote:
Nice try, but a year is not, so far as I can tell, defined in any
particular way and so has its common meaning. A year is simply a year
from birthday to birthday, no matter how many days are in that
particular year. You're 21 on March 10, 2004.
Drink one for the poor fellows born on February 29, 1984. They won't
be 21 until March 1, 2005.
Technically, they won't be 21 until 2068 or so.
4 * 21=84
How old are you granma? 14.
|
| |
| |
On 18 Feb 2004 09:40:28 -0800, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher
Green) wrote:
Dan Evans <dan@evans-legal.com> wrote in message news:<t7p5301fvvs7a3iskoe1f7munsmgbhajo1@4ax.com>...
But I will say that, at common law, one usually achieves an age the
day *before* one's birthday. So, if you were born on March 10, 1983,
you are considered (at common law) to be 21 years of age on March 9,
2004. (This is because common law does not recognize fractions of a
day.)
(And I don't know if California follows the common law rule.)
I did find Family Code 6500, which specifies that for determining the
day on which one is no longer a minor, you start with the first minute
on the day you were born and count one year on the first minute of the
corresponding day each year.
I'm not surprised that California would change the common-law rule by
statute, particularly for things like the sale of alcoholic beverages,
because the common-law rule is somewhat counter-intuitive.
However, it has been followed by the IRS (at least when it benefits
the taxpayer):
Rev. Rul. 69-422: "Held, for purposes of computing his retirement
income credit under section 37 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,
the taxpayer became 72 years of age the day BEFORE his 72d birthday
and thus he had attained the age of 72 before the close of his prior
taxable year." (Emphasis added.)
Rev. Rul. 77-382: "Held, for purposes of section 121 of the Code, the
taxpayer is considered to have attained the age of 65 on the first
moment of May 31, 1977, the day BEFORE the taxpayer's birthday.
Therefore, the taxpayer may elect to exclude the gain from the sale of
the residence from gross income, to the extent provided in section
121." (Emphasis added.)
The first time I ran into the principle was a Pennsylvania decision
that held that a defendant could be tried as an adult for a crime
committed the day before his 17th (?) birthday.
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
On 17 Feb 2004 23:55:45 -0800, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher
Green) wrote:
Drink one for the poor fellows born on February 29, 1984. They won't
be 21 until March 1, 2005.
I would think that someone born on February 29 achieves a new age on
February 28 in non-leap years, and not March 1.
But I don't know of any statutory or judicial authority.
However, there is an IRS rule for dealing with anniversaries that
don't exist.
For example, a federal estate tax return is due nine months after the
date of death. So, if someone dies May 20th, the tax return is due on
the 20th day of the ninth month following, which would be February
20th.
But suppose that someone dies May 30th or 31st? There isn't any
February 30th or 31st. The same problem occurs for deaths on December
31 (no Sept. 31) and July 31 (no April 31).
The rule in that case is that the return is due on the last day of the
month. So, for deaths on May 29, 30, or 31, the estate tax return is
due February 28 (or February 29 in a leap year).
Finally, I looked up a fairly recent Pennsylvania decision on the
issue of when someone reaches an age:
"The genesis of the rule that a person reaches a given age on the day
preceding the anniversary of his birth can be traced to seventeenth
century England. See Nichols v. Ramsel, 86 Eng.Rep. 1072 (K.B.1677);
Herbert v. Turball, 83 Eng.Rep. 1129 (K.B.1663). See also 1 W.
Blackstone, Commentaries <*>463 ("So that full age in male or female
is twenty one years, which age is completed on the day preceding the
anniversary of a person's birth . . ., who till that time is an infant
and so styled in law . . ."); Annot: Inclusion or Exclusion of the Day
of Birth in Computing One's Age, 5 A.L.R.2d 1143 (1949). The rule
developed asan exception to the general rule of the common law for
computation of time which excluded the first day and included the last
.. . . The exception was a fiction introduced in the law apparently
because the common law took no notice of fractions of a day . . . This
legal fiction therefore was originally established to aid persons who
would experience hardship or loss by virtue of the general rule of
computation. United States v. Tucker, 407 A.2d 1067, 1070
(App.D.C.1979) (citations omitted).
"Since as early as 1908 courts of this Commonwealth have adhered to
the aforesaid rule. Commonwealth v. Howe, 35 Pa.Super. 554 (1908). See
also In re Stout, 521 Pa. 571, 559 A.2d 489 (1989); Firing v. Kephart,
466 Pa. 560, 353 A.2d 833 (1976); Gerson v. Daly, 337 Pa. 346, 11 A.2d
148 (1940). Other jurisdictions have followed the rule as well. See,
e.g., People v. Anderson, 108 Ill.App.3d 563, 64 Ill.Dec. 136, 439
N.E.2d 65 (1982); Edmonds v. State, 154 Ga.App. 650, 269 S.E.2d 512
(1980); In re Interest of F.W., 130 N.J.Super. 513, 327 A.2d 697
(1974); State v. Brown, 443 S.W.2d 805 (Mo.1969)." Com. v. Iafrate,
527 Pa. 497, 594 A.2d 293, 1991 Pa. LEXIS 151 (1990), (common law rule
does not apply to determination of when a juvenile should be tried as
an adult for a criminal offense committed on the day before his 18th
birthday).
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
if common law does not recognize 'fractions of a day' then it must
accept 365 days as 1 year, and thus every leap year would add an extra
day. Which would mean March 4th would be my birthday.
Dan Evans wrote:
But I will say that, at common law, one usually achieves an age the
day *before* one's birthday. So, if you were born on March 10, 1983,
you are considered (at common law) to be 21 years of age on March 9,
2004. (This is because common law does not recognize fractions of a
day.)
(And I don't know if California follows the common law rule.)
*Dan Evans
*"One is not superior merely because one
*sees the world as odious."
*Francios Rene de Chateaubriand (1768-1848).
|
| |
| |
Well, I guess this is it.
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
6803. "Year" means a period of 365 days; "half year," 182 days;
"quarter of a year," 91 days. The added day of a leap year, and the
day immediately preceding, if they occur in any such period, shall be
reckoned together as one day.
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402171827.71824425@posting.google.com>...
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
|
| |
| |
Here's some interesting case law though, in which my argument was won
in the state of Oregon.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115870.htm
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402171827.71824425@posting.google.com>...
I was wondering if federal law or state law(in my case, California)
defines the term 'year' in any of it's codes. The reason I'm asking
is because according to California Business and Professions code 25658
no one can sell or furnish alcohol to a person 'under the age of 21
years'. I'm asking because my birthday is coming up on March 10th. I
was born in 1983 which means there have been 6 leap years(including
this year) since I was born. So if one year is technically 365 days,
and each leap year adds one day, then technically shouldn't I be able
to buy alcohol on March 4th? (if 1 year = 365 days and 21 years is
7,665 days, with leap years I will be 7,665 days old on March 4th,
March 10th would be 7,671 days.) So unless a year is defined as 365
and 1/4 days, I would assume I can buy alcohol on the 4th, instead of
having to wait until the 10th.
|
| |
| |
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402182231.7b31b235@posting.google.com>...
Here's some interesting case law though, in which my argument was won
in the state of Oregon.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115870.htm
Actually, your argument lost. Plaintiff's discrimination case was
timely filed within one year when it was filed on the anniversary of
the event, even though that year was a 366-day year.
The case mentions dicta that could be read as supporting your view
(that a year is 365 days) but in the same breath says that this view
doesn't hold water.
--
Not a lawyer,
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
Dan Evans wrote:
I'm not surprised that California would change the common-law rule by
statute, particularly for things like the sale of alcoholic beverages,
because the common-law rule is somewhat counter-intuitive.
However, it has been followed by the IRS (at least when it benefits
the taxpayer):
The IRS has ONLY so found in some cases. A child born January 1,
2004 is not a 2003 dependent. A child born January 1, 1987 is
still 16 on December 31, 2003, so qualifies for the child tax
credit. (If I miscounted, replace "1987" by "1986" and "16"
by "17".)
|
| |
| |
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402182231.7b31b235@posting.google.com>...
Here's some interesting case law though, in which my argument was won
in the state of Oregon.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115870.htm
You have two problems with that case.
Firstly, it is an Oregon case and you live in California.
Secondly, your argument -lost-. The plaintiff argued that the 366-day
period from August 4, 1999 to Augusts 4, 2000 (2000 being a leap year)
was one year. The defendant argued that it was one year plus one day.
The plaintiff won. The court held that, for the purposes of the
statute in question, a "year" was one calendar year of 365 or 366
days.
RA
|
| |
| |
Yea, kind of forgot to read through the apeals decision haha
cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green) wrote in message news:<c31fa7b1.0402190920.5a95a041@posting.google.com>...
Lucky225@2600.com (Lucky225) wrote in message news:<ee6fd48a.0402182231.7b31b235@posting.google.com>...
Actually, your argument lost. Plaintiff's discrimination case was
timely filed within one year when it was filed on the anniversary of
the event, even though that year was a 366-day year.
The case mentions dicta that could be read as supporting your view
(that a year is 365 days) but in the same breath says that this view
doesn't hold water.
|
| |
| |
|
