---

1. Jesus Said Income Tax is Only on “foreigners”

What did Jesus say on the subject of “taxation”?

“Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes
24 When they had come to [h]Capernaum, those who received the [i]temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 27 Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”
[Matt. 17: 24-26, Bible, NKJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017&version=NKJV]

In the Bible, a “stranger” is an archaic term for the modern term “foreigner”. Do you believe God on this subject?

The use of the fish’s mouth is a metaphor for a modern cargo ship that travels on the sea. When it arrives, the mouth opens and the cargo is unloaded. A portion of the VALUE of the cargo becomes the tariff. So the tax is a tax on foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. Why? Because that is a subject matter jurisdiction Congress has everywhere in the Union. Everything else within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state that does NOT deal with subject matter jurisdiction is private and foreign.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court RECOGNIZES and even OBEYS the words of Jesus in the following rulings:

“The difficulties arising out of our dual form of government and the opportunities for differing opinions concerning the relative rights of state and national governments are many; but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions. The same basic reasoning which leads to that conclusion, we think, requires like limitation upon the power which springs from the bankruptcy clause. United States v. Butler, supra.”
[Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, 298 U.S. 513, 532, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2540787575983543061]

“In the states, there reposes the sovereignty to manage their own affairs except only as the requirements of the Constitution otherwise provide. Within these constitutional limits the power of the state over taxation is plenary [exclusive].” 
[Madden v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 93 (1940); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1599685465547047898]

“It is no longer open to question that the general government, unlike the states, Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 275 , 38 S.Ct. 529, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann.Cas.1918E 724, possesses no inherent power in respect of the internal affairs of the states; and emphatically not with regard to legislation.“ 
[Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 295, 56 S.Ct. 855 (1936); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690667556596791816]

“The States, after they formed the Union, continued to have the same range of taxing power which they had before, barring only duties affecting exports, imports, and on tonnage. Congress, on the other hand, to lay taxes in order ‘to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States’, Art. 1, Sec. 8, U.S.C.A.Const., can reach every person and every dollar in the land with due regard to Constitutional limitations as to the method of laying taxes.” 
[Graves v. People of State of New York, 306 U.S. 466, 488 (1939); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8384484443066777121]

“The grant of the power to lay and collect taxes is, like the power to regulate commerce, made in general terms, and has never been understood to interfere with the exercise of the same power by the State; and hence has been drawn an argument which has been applied to the question under consideration. But the two grants are not, it is conceived, similar in their terms or their nature. Although many of the powers formerly [22 U.S. 1, 199] exercised by the States, are transferred to the government of the Union, yet the State governments remain, and constitute a most important part of our system. The power of taxation is indispensable to their existence, and is a power which, in its own nature, is capable of residing in, and being exercised by, different authorities at the same time. We are accustomed to see it placed, for different purposes, in different hands. Taxation is the simple operation of taking small portions from a perpetually accumulating mass, susceptible of almost infinite division; and a power in one to take what is necessary for certain purposes, is not, in its nature, incompatible with a power in another to take what is necessary for other purposes. Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, and to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. This does not interfere with the power of the States to tax [internally] for the support of their own governments; nor is the exercise of that power by the States [to tax INTERNALLY], an exercise of any portion of the power that is granted to the United States [to tax EXTERNALLY].  In imposing taxes for State purposes, they are not doing what Congress is empowered to do. Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. When, then, each government exercises the power of taxation, neither is exercising the power of the other. But, when a State proceeds to regulate commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, it is exercising the very power that is granted to Congress, [22 U.S. 1, 200] and is doing the very thing which Congress is authorized to do. There is no analogy, then, between the power of taxation and the power of regulating commerce. “ 
[Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 21, 198-199 (1824); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1173503503763993716]

2. Everything outside the United States federal corporation as a legal person is CIVILLY “foreign”

The term “Domestic” is defined to mean anything created or organized under the laws of the United States corporation:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(4)Domestic

The term “domestic” when applied to a corporation or partnership means created or organized in the United States or under the law of the United States or of any State unless, in the case of a partnership, the Secretary provides otherwise by regulations.

The opposite of “domestic” is “foreign”. The statutory definition confirms that its anything NOT within the “United States” federal corporation as a legal person or people who partner with it:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(5)Foreign

The term “foreign” when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic.

The above definitions are consistent with the fact that the IRS has NO ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY against people not acting as its own agents, and therefore “domestic”. This is proven below:

Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf

3. The IRS Is “foreign” in relation to the Department of Treasury

The IRS has NEVER been listed as a component of the Department of the Treasury organization charts. See the history of those charts here:

History of Treasury Department Organization, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Research/TreasOrgHist/TreasOrgHist.htm

NOWHERE within Title 31 of the U.S. Code is the IRS ever mentioned as being lawfully established or functioning WITHIN the Department of the Treasury.

More on this subject at:

Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005, Chapter 3: Government Organization
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf

4. The States of the Union are CIVILLY “foreign” to the “United States” federal corporation

“A foreign corporation is one that derives its existence solely from the laws of another state, government, or country, and the term is used indiscriminately, sometimes in statutes, to designate either a corporation created by or under the laws of another state or a corporation created by or under the laws of a foreign country.”

“A federal corporation operating within a state is considered a domestic corporation rather than a foreign corporation.  The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”  

[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §883 (2003)]

---

The term ”foreign government” as used in this title includes any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States. [the several Union states are foreign to the United States; that makes-by definition-the state governments foreign governments]

[8 U.S.C. §11. Foreign government defined. ]

---

Foreign Laws:“The laws of a foreign country or sister state.  In conflicts of law, the legal principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation.  Foreign laws are additions to our own laws, and in that respect are called ‘jus receptum’.”  

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, p. 647]

---

Foreign Laws:“The laws of a foreign country or sister state.  In conflicts of law, the legal principles of jurisprudence which are part of the law of a sister state or nation.  Foreign laws are additions to our own laws, and in that respect are called ‘jus receptum’.”  

[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, p. 647]

26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1 identifies states of the Union with the lower case “s”, meaning that they are foreign.

26 CFR §301.7701(b)-1 – Resident alien.

(c) Substantial presence test—

(1) In general. An alien individual is a resident alien if the individual meets the substantial presence test. An individual satisfies this test if he or she has been present in the United States on at least 183 days during a three year period that includes the current year. For purposes of this test, each day of presence in the current year is counted as a full day. Each day of presence in the first preceding year is counted as one-third of a day and each day of presence in the second preceding year is counted as one-sixth of a day. For purposes of this paragraph, any fractional days resulting from the above calculations will not be rounded to the nearest whole number. (See § 301.7701(b)-9(b)(2) for transitional rules for calendar years 1985 and 1986.)

(2) Determination of presence—

(i) Physical presence. For purposes of the substantial presence test, an individual shall be treated as present in the United States on any day that he or she is physically present in the United States at any time during the day. (But see § 301.7701(b)-3 relating to days of presence that may be excluded.)

(ii) United States. For purposes of section 7701(b) and the regulations thereunder, the term United States when used in a geographical sense includes the states and the District of Columbia. It also includes the territorial waters of the United States and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. It does not include the possessions and territories of the United States or the air space over the United States.

Naming and capitalization conventions for statutory terms confirm the above, which you can read at:

FTSIG Disclaimer, Section 35: Rules for interpreting words or terms that are not expressly defined
https://ftsig.org/advanced/definitions/#35._Rules

5. ALL I.R.C. Subtitle A “income” is “foreign”

The Internal Revenue Code , 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part I identifies ALL “income” a “taxpayer” can earn as “foreign income”

26 U.S. Code Subtitle A Chapter 1 Subchapter N Part I – SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME

• U.S. Code
• Notes

1. § 861. Income from sources within the United States
2. § 862. Income from sources without the United States
3. § 863. Special rules for determining source
4. § 864. Definitions and special rules
5. § 865. Source rules for personal property sales

Notice there are two different references to “income from [geographic] sources without the United States”?

1. Subchapter N, Part I, § 862 (relating to foreign person income); and
2. Subchapter N, Part III (stated within the part’s heading itself)

Because 1. relates to “foreign income” (read: foreign person income), it follows from the context that 2. Part III is attributable to U.S. persons.

We believe all the domestic quasi-contractual provisions we have previously identified are in place resulting in:

1. U.S. persons being taxed on worldwide income at a graduated rate through the “trade or business” franchise in the “United States^G” and from foreign sources under Subchapter N, Part III as a resident agent of the United States^GOV pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §911(d) or 26 U.S.C. §937, with 26 U.S.C. §7408(d) applying in either instance.

2. Foreign persons taxed under Subchapter N, Part III.

2.1. Alien NRAs engaged in the “trade or business” franchise

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §872, taxed under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) with deductions under 26 U.S.C. §873.

2.2. Alien NRAs not engaged in a trade or business.

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §872, taxed under 26 U.S.C. §871(a) with no deductions permitted under 26 U.S.C. §873.

2.3. Non-alien NRAs (American nationals)

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §872, taxed under 26 U.S.C. §862 via 26 U.S.C. §864, with deductions under 26 U.S.C. §873.

And then finally, APART from the domestic “effectively connected” franchise:

The geographical meaning of “United States” in 861 and 862 is there for at least three reasons:

1. To give the impression that the 16A language “from whatever source derived” permits any and all income to be taxable regardless of where (and ostensibly how) it is derived.
2. The geographical source categories veil the substantive source of taxable income: “trade or business” with the United States^GOV and its agents.
3. The geographies serve as a functional intermediary to permit the “effectively connected” function to always be manifest. That is, the foreign taxpayer is “effectively connected” to a United States^GOV payment through a geographical source category whether within or without the United States^G, because it’s the substantive source that really matters—not the geographical funnel it goes through before received.

For an example of how to apply this realty to a specific tax obligation, see:

PROOF OF FACTS: “Deferred earnings” paid in connection with government retirement earned as a a “U.S. person” are not “foreign income” or taxable under I.R.C. 864(c), FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-deferred-retirement-earnings-not-taxable/

6. Extraterritorial (civilly or politically foreign) application of law requires EXPRESS statutory authorization and the Presence Test is the only method to satisfy this requirement

The Supreme Court has long held that, absent a clear statement from Congress, federal statutes are presumed to apply only within U.S. territory. Below are the leading cases and principles that establish this “clear‐statement rule.”, which is an example of the constitutional requirement for “reasonable notice” as documented below:

Requirement for Reasonable Notice, Form #05.022
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableNotice.pdf

By “extraterritoriality”, we mean geographies that are EITHER civilly foreign, politically foreign under the law of nationals, or both. For the purposes of federal law, “territory” includes areas ONLY within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. See:

Authorities on “territory”, Family Guardian
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/territory.htm

6.1. Foundational Supreme Court Decisions

• U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) “It is a familiar rule that statutes will not be construed to have extra-territorial operation unless such intention be clearly expressed.”
• Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949) Reaffirmed Bowman’s principle in the customs-duties context, requiring express language before a tariff statute reaches beyond U.S. shores.

6.2. The Modern “Clear Statement” Rule

• EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991) Employment-discrimination law: Congress must proclaim an extraterritorial reach with unmistakable clarity.
• Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) In private civil-securities suits, the presumption bars application to foreign conduct unless the statute’s text “provide[s] a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.”
• RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016) Reinforced Morrison in the antitrust context: foreign plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act require express congressional intent for extraterritorial effect.

6.3. Antitrust and Related Statutes

• F. Hoffmann‐La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) Extended the presumption to bar antitrust claims grounded wholly on foreign harm.
• 28 U.S.C. § 2680(k) (Foreign-Country Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act) Statutory carve-out demonstrating Congress’s ability to specify when U.S. remedies do not apply abroad.

6.4. International-Law Principle of Territorial Sovereignty

• Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10 “Every State may exercise its power on the high seas. . . .But it may not extend its exercise beyond its territory unless such extension is permitted by international law.”
• PCIJ Advisory Opinions (1923–1930) Establish that one government may not enforce its laws on another sovereign’s soil without consent.

6.5. Beyond the Baseline

1. Scope of “Territory”
   • U.S. jurisdiction includes land, internal waters, territorial sea (12 nmi), and airspace (1 U.S.C. § 1).
   • Certain statutes explicitly define “United States” to include or exclude U.S. territories.
2. Statutory Exceptions
   • Tax statutes often include source rules (e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 861–865) rather than direct extraterritorial application.
   • Criminal statutes sometimes contain jurisdictional hooks (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3238 for crimes committed abroad).
3. Practical Impact
   • In the absence of an express provision, courts will refuse to extend U.S. law to foreign conduct or persons.
   • To apply a statute extraterritorially, look first for a clear jurisdictional section or “savings clause.”

7. Resident agents subject to the tax are all “foreign”

The previous section established that extraterritorial application of federal law requires express statutory authorization. We will now apply this to the various civil statuses within the I.R.C.

Throughout this site, we refer to “U.S. persons” as “resident agents” for an office civilly domiciled in the District of Columbia. But there is a limit to where these offices can LAWFULLY and PHYSICALLY be exercised as required by 4. U.S.C. §72. Congress can only “expressly authorize” the “U.S. person” office in a physical place and there must be a statute EXPRESSLY permitting said exercise, such as 26 U.S.C. §911 and that locality must be connected with a presence test of some kind. Consistent with this section, the term “resident alien” is a LEGAL status NOT NECESSARILY tied to the “presence test” as proven in the following article:

PROOF OF FACTS: Enforcing INVOLUNTARY “resident alien” status against those with a CIVILLY foreign domicile is criminal identity theft, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-enforcing-involuntary-resident-alien-status-against-those-with-a-civilly-foreign-domicile-is-criminal-identity-theft/

The exercise of any CIVIL office or CIVIL status OUTSIDE the exclusive jurisdiction of the granting power represents purely private commercial activity that must operate by contract or quasi-contract. It can acquire the “force of law” by no other reasonable method. As such, the rules of equity apply to all such transactions and in that character, the United States operates as an equal in relation to all such “quasi-contractors”.

There are only four distinct civil statuses dealing with American nationals for which a tax can be imposed. The table below excludes aliens:

#	Location	Authority	Status	Presence test?	Taxpayer Relationship	Geography Relationship
1	Legally WITHIN the United States federal corporation	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d)	U.S. person	No. Legal presence is not physical so no presence test needed.	CIVILLY “domestic”	POLITICALLY “domestic” but CIVILLY “foreign”
2	Legally WITHOUT the United States federal corporation	26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B)	Nonresident alien	No (only for aliens in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b))	CIVILLY “foreign”. NOT a CIVIL “foreign person”	POLITICALLY “domestic” but CIVILLY “foreign”
3	In physical territory or possession	26 U.S.C. §937	U.S. person	Yes	CIVILLY “domestic”	POLITICALLY and CIVILLY “foreign”
4	Physically abroad	26 U.S.C. §911	U.S. person	Yes	CIVILLY “domestic”	POLITICALLY and CIVILLY “foreign”

NOTES:

1. The Constitution defines the relationship between and among all those who are POLITICAL/geographically domestic while also being CIVILLY foreign.
2. CIVILLY “Domestic” is defined at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4).
3. CIVILLY “Foreign” is defined at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(5).
4. You can’t be CIVILLY domestic within a specific jurisdiction without a domicile there under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The operation of federal civil law WITHOUT such a domicile is purely private business activity that operates by “quasi-contract”.
5. 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2(b) identifies territories and possessions as “foreign countries” and thus POLITICALLY and CIVILLY foreign.
6. A presence test, such as that in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) is mandatory in order to satisfy the requirements of 4. U.S.C. §72 and thereby “expressly authorize” the exercise of the “U.S. person” office in a specific geography.
7. Judicial districts consist ONLY of territory and property under exclusive United States^SMJ. They DO NOT include people standing outside that territory within the exclusive jurisdiction of their State (State^G), unless they make a VOLUNTARY election (consent) that creates a USPI property interest that gives rise to federal preemption over State^G under 28 U.S.C. §1652. Territory not under exclusive jurisdiction is foreign without demonstrated United States^SMJ arising from USPI.

The above table is consistent with the diagram below:

We therefore believe based on the above that:

1. A U.S. person shouldn’t have a tax liability unless abroad.
2. American nationals who are NRA can’t have an Effectively Connected liability within the United States^G because the office or status when exercised within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.

The reasons for the above two logical inferences are:

1. All law is prima facie territorial, meaning confined to the exclusive jurisdiction of the granting power.
2. Extraterritorial operation requires an EXPRESS authorization by statute, just like with the U.S. person above.
3. There is no presence test in the localities identified as items 1 and 2 of the above table. They thus never receive “extraterritoriality notice” by statutes as required by the Supreme Court.
4. Without “extraterritoriality notice” as required by the U.S. Supreme Court and 4. U.S.C. §72, they aren’t “expressly authorized” to act as an agent or officer of the national government called a “U.S. person” within the CIVILLY foreign jurisdiction of a constitutional state.
5. If they elect anyway, they are criminally impersonating a public office in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912.
6. The direct tax prohibitions of the Constitution in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 would be violated, because all earnings “effectively connected” on a 1040NR or entered on a 1040 are “gross receipts”. The tax would thus be on “gross receipts” rather than only PROFIT as required by the constitution. These protections only apply to people standing on land within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. Note that for Table items 3 and 4 above The constitution does NOT apply:
   6.1. In a foreign country. or
   6.2. To people in territories or possessions UNLESS they are “incorporated territories”.
7. All methods of ENTERING the amounts on the tax return are connected with a PUBLIC privilege called “trade or business” and thus represent PUBLIC property. No one can force you to convert or donate your PRIVATE property to PUBLIC property without your consent. See:
   The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
8. It is repugnant to the constitution to regulate or tax PRIVATE property. You must consensually DONATE that private property to PUBLIC property before it can be regulated or taxed. If this ISN’T the case, we don’t need no STINKING constitution or Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution), because private property is the only thing these things REALLY protect.

More on extraterritorial application of federal CIVIL law at:

Sources of Extraterritorial CIVIL Jurisdiction, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/sources-of-extraterritorial-civil-jurisdiction/

8. Systems of Records are on “foreigners”

U.S. government agencies maintain what are called “systems of records”. Such records in the case of the Treasury/IRS are found at:

1. Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Systems of Records, Federal Register Vol. 66, pp. 63784 through 63875, SEDM Exhibit #10.001
   https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX10.001.pdf
2. Department of the Treasury, Systems of Records, Federal Register Vol. 66, pp. 44204 through 44213, SEDM Exhibit #10.002
   https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX10.002.pdf

“Systems of records” is an awkward title that merely describes the “information catalogue system” by which agencies keep all the data they accumulate.

The government collects and amasses a gargantuan amount of data. Each agency must not only store that data, but also be able to locate and retrieve it on demand. The system of records is the “information catalogue system” by which they keep all that data in an organized fashion.

Most of the government’s systems of records are dull and unimportant. Some are not! In the case of “willful failure to file” prosecutions, the income tax is only imposed upon a foreign person with domestic source income and U.S. citizens with foreign-earned income. And of course, the withholding agent is made liable for withholding and paying the foreign person’s tax to the Treasury.

Let’s see how all that ties in with the IRS’s system of records. Where does the IRS keep all of its records concerning taxpayers who the IRS believes have committed Failure to File? We find those records are kept in a system of records designated as “Treasury/IRS 49.007” and entitled

“Overseas Compliance Projects System”.

The information in this system of records (which appears in the Federal Register as indicated above) states the following:

1. The system is maintained by the Assistant Commissioner, International.
2. The system manager is the Assistant Commissioner, International.
3. The system pertains to income tax, gift tax, and estate tax.
4. Categories of individuals covered by the system are U.S. citizens, Resident Aliens, and Nonresident Aliens.
5. Item #4 in the description of records covered by the system is “failure to file required returns or pay tax due.”

There are some interesting issues to note here.

1. First, we can see that failure to file required returns or pay tax due essentially mimics the language of 7203, thus allowing us to have confidence that this failure to file is the same as 7203 – even though we know it must be because there is no other section in the Code that addresses failure to file.
2. Second, the individuals covered in the system are exactly those we have discussed, i.e. “nonresident aliens” who are ALSO aliens with domestic source income under 26 U.S.C. 871(b) and not (a), and U.S. citizens and resident aliens with foreign-earned income.
3. Third, this system of records is maintained exclusively by the Assistant Commissioner, International.

And I have saved the best for last:

There is no other system of records in existence in which records are maintained concerning people the IRS believes have committed the offense of failure to file\ Or phrased another way, the only records that the IRS keeps about people it believes have committed failure to file are under the sole and exclusive authority of the Assistant Commissioner, International.

IRS system of records number 49.008 is entitled “Taxpayer Service Correspondence System”. Care to guess who maintains this system of records and who is its manager? You’re right; it’s the Assistant Commissioner, International.

What records does this file cover? “Correspondence from taxpayers.” And of course there is no other system of records entitled Taxpayer Service Correspondence, nor any other system that contains “correspondence from taxpayers.” What this means is that all “correspondence from taxpayers” is maintained by the Assistant Commissioner, International.

Are you getting it?

9. Further Evidence Corroborating this article

SOURCE:

Why It’s A Crime for a Private American National to File a 1040 Tax Return, Form #08.021, Section 17
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhyCrimefileReturn.pdf

---

1. Even to this day, the constitution FORBIDS direct taxes on PRIVATE property.

1.1. A tax on GROSS RECEIPTS is a tax on private property.

1.2. EVERYTHING that goes in on the 1040 form and everything in the “effectively connected” section of the 1040NR is GROSS RECEIPTS and therefore PRIVATE property.

1.3. Thus, the constitution forbids either of the above two from being taxed within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state among those STANDING on such land and not abroad.

1.4. More on the above at:

Constitutional taxation provisions 1:8:1, 1:9:4, 1:2:3, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/history/constitutional-provisions-123-194/

2. There is NO definition of “State” or “the States” that EXPRESSLY includes states of the Union.  Thus, they are purposefully EXCLUDED per the rules of statutory construction.  See 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d).

3. There is NO ENFORCEMENT authority against you without a domestic “U.S. person” election.  See:

Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf

4.The only liability statute under I.R.C. subtitle A is withholding agents on aliens in 26 U.S.C. §1461.

5.IRS is only authorized to enforce within “Internal Revenue Districts” and there aren’t any left.  They were all abolished after the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998.  See 26 U.S.C. §7601.

6.26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) imposes the tax on “worldwide income” for “U.S. persons” but 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Subchapter N, Part I limits ALL INCOME to “foreign income”. 

6.1. See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-N/part-I

6.2. Congress never defines “foreign income” for OBVIOUS reasons but it can only mean:

6.2.1. American nationals abroad who make an “expressly authorized” U.S. person election AUTHORIZED ONLY by 26 U.S.C. §911.

6.2.2. “Nonresident aliens” who are aliens at home with a foreign domicile and not standing on land protected by the constitution.

6.3. What all the above types of income have in common is that they involve the FOREIGN AFFAIRS jurisdiction of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which is plenary and comes under federal preemption.

7.There is NO PROVISION of law EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZING  a political citizen such as a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States****” to elect CIVIL “individual” status OTHER than 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3).  Thus, there is no way to BECOME a CIVIL STATUTORY “individual” under the income tax as an American National WITHOUT being “abroad”.

8.The U.S. Supreme Court MANDATES every attempt to enforce EXTRATERRITORIALLY to be noticed by statute:

8.1. The word “territory” in federal law excludes states of the Union and includes areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress.

8.2. There IS express extraterritorial notice in the case of:

8.2.1. Territory or possession:  26 U.S.C. 937.

8.2.2. Physically abroad: 26 U.S.C. §911 .

8.3. There IS no such EXPRESS notice in the case of states of the Union.  Thus, there is NO enforcement authority within constitutional states of the Union.

8.4. 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d):

8.4.1. Place those claiming “U.S. person” status in the District of Columbia if they are NOT within any the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress within a judicial district.

8.4.2. If “U.S. person” was a human being, it would be identity theft to do so without consent of the party.

8.4.3. These provisions would be UNNECESSARY of Congress really had civil legislative jurisdiction within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.

8.5. Cases identifying this doctrine:

8.5.1. U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=446337763070233432.

8.5.2. Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949).
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6379131599355318274

8.6. 4 U.S.C. §72 implements this notice requirement as well by requiring all offices of the national government MUST be exercised in the District of Columbia and “not elsewhere” unless EXPRESSLY authorized by law.

9.The term “domestic” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) has NOTHING to do with geography and EVERYTHING to do with whether you are surety for a fictional office or status within the United States federal corporation.  See:

Definitions: INTERNAL and EXTERNAL, DOMESTIC and FOREIGN terms, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/definitions-internal-and-external-domestic-and-foreign-terms/

10.States of the Union are referred to in federal regulations with a LOWER CASE “s” in the word “state”, implying that they are legislatively/civilly foreign.  See 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2)(ii).

11.The United States government defines and regards anything OUTSIDE the United States federal corporation as “foreign”.  See:

What YOUR GOVERNMENT Thinks “Foreign” Means, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/what-your-government-thinks-foreign-means/

12.IRS Internal Revenue Manual FORBIDS “Substitute for Returns” (assessments or Notice of Deficiency Procedures that result from them) using forms 1040 and 1040NR.  See:

12.1. Internal Revenue Manual, Section 5.1.11.7.7 (04-23-2014)
https://www.irs.gov/irm/part5/irm_05-001-011r#idm140660004201104

12.2. Why the Government Can’t Lawfully Assess Human Beings With an Income Tax Liability Without Their Consent, Form #05.011
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-government-cant-lawfully-assess-human-beings-with-an-income-tax-liability-without-their-consent-form-05-011-2/18

13.It is a CRIME to bribe a voter with government “benefits”. 18 U.S.C. §597.

14.It is a CRIME to “tamper with a jurist” by paying them “benefits”. 18 U.S.C. §1503.   The purpose of the income tax is to FUND such bribes.

15.It is a CRIME to impersonate a CIVIL statutory “citizen”.  That is what you do as a state national making a “U.S. person” election. 18 U.S.C. §911.

NO ONE, even by consent or election, can break down the legal/civil separation between the states of the Union and the National Government.  A “U.S. person” election does exactly that.  It’s TREASON to do so.  See:

Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf

10. Conclusions

The income tax is limited to the foreign affairs functions of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution. This site takes the position that “foreign income” in Internal Revenue Code , 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part I means:

1. Earnings of American nationals abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911 who make a foreign election by filing a 1040 form.
2. “Foreign persons” (aliens and not American nationals) receiving income from any “domestic” source under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4). By “domestic” we mean GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC source.

Everyone OTHER than the above are volunteers, which includes people born or residing in states of the Union and protected by the constitution, as described in:

How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

If you the reader disagree with the above, you have the burden of proving that “foreign income” under Internal Revenue Code , 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part I includes anything OTHER than the above. We have been searching for decades for such evidence and found none. And such a definition MUST exist where the constitution applies, because of the constitutional requirement for “reasonable notice” of what the law expects of you. NO PRESUMPTIONS PLEASE, because they are a violation of due process of law!

Reasonable Belief About Income Tax Liability, Form #05.007
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ReasonableBelief.pdf

There is NO AUTHORITY anywhere in the I.R.C. for a POLITICAL “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) to make an ELECTION to be treated as a CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen^P of the United States^GOV” OTHER than in 26 U.S.C. §911 while “abroad”.

1. The election is documented in 26 U.S.C. §911(d)(3) and 26 C.F.R. §1.911-2.

2. 26 U.S.C. §911(b)(1)(A) defines “foreign earned income” within the context of “U.S. persons” CONSISTENT with section 5 earlier of this article.

26 U.S. Code § 911 – Citizens or residents of the United States living abroad

(b)Foreign earned income

(1)Definition

For purposes of this section—

(A)In general

The term “foreign earned income” with respect to any individual means the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country or countries which constitute earned income attributable to services performed by such individual during the period described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (d)(1), whichever is applicable.

3. Filing the 1040 form INSTEAD of the correct 1040NR form is the method of MAKING the election. That form even allows and recognizes the Form 2555 attachment as a method to take the foreign income credit.

4. The famous case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) dealt with this subject.
https://ftsig.org/cook-v-tait-265-u-s-47-1924/

5. The term “abroad” in 26 U.S.C. §911 is never defined but the regulations reveal what it means in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2, keeping in mind that “resident aliens” abroad are also covered by 26 U.S.C. §911.

26 CFR § 301.7701(b)-2 – Closer connection exception.

(b) Foreign country. 

For purposes of section 7701(b) and the regulations thereunder, the term “foreign country” when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of the United Nations or a government other than that of the United States. It includes the territorial waters of the foreign country (determined in accordance with the laws of the United States), and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the foreign country has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. It also includes the possessions and territories of the United States.

Since American nationals are nonresident aliens by default as recognized by 26 U.S.C. §873, then their income is “foreign” when they assume the status of “foreign person”, which we have identified as ONLY an “alien” in the following articles on this site. There is NO authority for an American national to be TREATED as or elect to be treated as an “alien” under any circumstance. See:

1. Microsoft Copilot: American nationals are not “foreign persons” for the purpose of I.R.C. Chapter 3 “foreign person” withholding in 26 U.S.C. 1441 and 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-american-nationals-are-not-foreign-persons-for-the-purpose-of-i-r-c-chapter-3-foreign-person-withholding-in-26-u-s-c-1441-and-26-c-f-r-1-1441-1/
2. Lawfully Avoiding Foreign Person Withholding, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/lawfully-avoiding-foreign-person-withholding/
3. W-8SUB, Form #04.231
   https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf

The constitutional prohibition against “direct taxes” in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 ENSURE that the ONLY way the current income tax can lawfully be collected within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union is through an ELECTION (consent). The following evidence establishes this fact:

1. That “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §61 is treated as “gross receipts” rather than “profit”. That means its a DIRECT TAX if instituted within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state of the Union. See:
   Constitutional taxation provisions 1:8:1, 1:9:4, 1:2:3, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/history/constitutional-provisions-123-194/
2. That EVERYTHING on the 1040 form is connected with privileged “trade or business” deductions in 26 U.S.C. §162 and therefore PUBLIC property rather than PRIVATE property. Only PROFIT is public property, and taxing or regulating the DEDUCTIONS as privileges, which are PRIVATE property violates the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. See:
   2.1. The Truth About Effectively Connecting, Form #05.056
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EffectivelyConnected.pdf
   2.2. The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
3. That the 1040NR instructions say under Block 1 that you should only enter “wages” that are “treated” as “effectively connected”. See:
   FRIVOLOUS SUBJECT: “Wages” are taxable to a Nonresident Alien who does not VOLUNTARILY Effectively Connect, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/frivolous-subject-wages-are-taxable-to-a-nonresident-alien-who-does-not-voluntarily-effectively-connect/

This interpretation of lawful income taxation is entirely consistent with Jesus’ (God’s) own words in the holy bible:

“Peter and His Master Pay Their Taxes

24 When they had come to [h]Capernaum, those who received the [i]temple tax came to Peter and said, “Does your Teacher not pay the temple tax?”

He said, “Yes.”

And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

Peter said to Him, “From strangers.”

Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for Me and you.”
[Matt. 17: 24-26, Bible, NKJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017&version=NKJV]

11. Further information

1. Definitions: INTERNAL and EXTERNAL, DOMESTIC and FOREIGN terms, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-internal-and-external-domestic-and-foreign-terms/
2. Definitions: “Foreign income”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-foreign-income/
3. Definitions: “worldwide income”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-worldwide-income/
4. Sources of Extraterritorial CIVIL Jurisdiction, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/sources-of-extraterritorial-civil-jurisdiction/
5. Taxation Page, section 14: IRS Intelligence and Information, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#IRS_INTELLIGENCE_AND_INFORMATION
6. Authorities on “foreign”, Family Guardian Fellowship
   https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/foreign.htm
7. Definitions: Foreign, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-foreign/
8. Origins and Authority of the Internal Revenue Service, Form #05.005
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf
9. IRS Historical Fact Book: A Chronology -by IRS
   https://famguardian.org/Publications/IRSHistoricalFactbook/IRS-HistoricalFactBook_1992.pdf