In a world edging closer to 1984, even a preposition isn’t safe.

Words Mean Things—Until They Don’t

In 1973, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gave us a clear, structured, and uncorrupted definition of the word “in.” It was simple: a function word indicating inclusion, location, or position within limits. Whether something was in the house, in the leg, or in the summer, the meaning was spatial, grounded, and universally understood.

Fast forward to today—where that same word is at the heart of a regulatory overreach by the Oregon Board of Tax Practitioners (OBTP). The Board has taken a preposition rooted in physical geography and morphed it into a mechanism of control, licensing out-of-state tax professionals by interpreting “in this state” to mean “if your client lives here, we regulate you.”

A Preposition Under Siege

Let’s be clear: the statute says the Board may issue licenses to those preparing taxes “in this state.” The phrase “in this state” is not ambiguous. As broken down grammatically in ORS 673.730(1), it functions as an adverbial prepositional phrase—modifying where the licensing applies, not who a tax return belongs to. It’s a geographical limitation, not a philosophical one.

And yet, OBTP’s interpretation turns that concrete boundary into a vaporous abstraction. According to them, “in” doesn’t mean “within the borders of Oregon”—it means “affecting an Oregonian.” Their version of “in” no longer requires presence, action, or contact within Oregon. It just requires the word “Oregon” to appear somewhere on the return.

Webster 1973 vs. Orwell 1984

This isn’t just a regulatory quibble. This is Newspeak, plain and simple.

In 1984, Orwell warned us that the first casualty of authoritarian control is language. The government didn’t need to outlaw ideas; it simply needed to remove the words necessary to express them. The fewer the definitions, the broader the power. The fuzzier the boundaries, the stronger the control.

When a state agency redefines a word like “in” to mean anything it wants, it bypasses democratic safeguards. It becomes judge, jury, and linguist. As Orwell wrote, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” And in Oregon, corrupted language has become the tool by which the OBTP claims authority over Utah tax preparers sitting at a desk in Salt Lake.

“In” This State—Not Any Other

Let’s not forget the website banner starring in this fight: in | this | state. Each word carefully chosen. Each word weaponized by the OBTP.

• In – No longer tied to geography.
• This – Somehow now refers to any location so long as an Oregon taxpayer is involved.
• State – Once a place with borders, now a concept of influence.

The agency has taken a sentence built to limit their power and used it to expand it.

Doublethink Meets Double Plus Ungood

In 1984, the Party didn’t just lie—they taught citizens to believe two contradictory things at once. They called it doublethink. Today, OBTP says “in this state” means “not in this state” while claiming to uphold the law.

The Board’s redefining of the word “in” is double plus ungood.

In a manner that’s plus doubleplus Ministry Certified.