1. PROCEDURE:

1. File the 1040NR using the following method as a NONTAXPAYER:
   Attachment to 1040NR Return for U.S. national filing as a “Nontaxpayer” and Private Party, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/attachment-to-1040nr-return-for-us-national-filing-as-a-nontaxpayer/
2. Check the status of your refund with IRS Online:
   2.1. IRS Online
   https://www.id.me/government/?utm_campaign=B2C&utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=web&utm_content=carousel-card#federal-ola
   2.2. Document Upload Tool
   https://www.irs.gov/help/irs-document-upload-tool
   2.3. Your Online Account
   https://www.irs.gov/payments/your-online-account
3. Call the IRS if your processing gets held up.
4. If they don’t process your return, file a claim for refund under the Tucker Act within 3 years per 26 U.S.C. §6511. You can file the claim as soon as 6 months have passed from the time the return was filed.
   4.1. Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. §1491: Claims exceeding $10,000.
   4.2. Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2): Claims up to $10,000.

2. AUTHORITIES:

1. 26 U.S.C. §7422: Civil Actions for Refund
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7422
2. 26 U.S.C. §6511: Limitations on credit or refund
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6511
3. 28 U.S.C. §1491: Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee Valley Authority
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
4. Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. §1491: Claims exceeding $10,000
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
5. Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2): Claims up to $10,000
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346
6. 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c)-authority to file for refund by nonresident alien U.S. national whose earnings are excluded.
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6012-1

3. FORMS:

1. 1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
   https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf
2. Procedure to File, Form #09.075** (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/procedure-to-file-tax-returns-form-09-075/
3. How to File Returns, Form #09.074** (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/

4. BACKGROUND:

The 1040NR filing procedure on this site:

1. Does not take the “taxpayer” route. 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c) is not a statutory remedy but a common law exclusively regulatory remedy. It’s provisions are not found in 26 U.S.C. §6012 that it implements.
2. Is very common among aliens abroad who are victims of false information returns. There are probably way more aliens abroad who use our procedure than U.S. nationals at home.

5. EQUITY JURISDICTION OVER TAX REFUND SUITS:

5.1. Introduction

An equity approach only applies to matters involving the proprietorial powers over public property and privileges dispensed to American nationals (U.S. nationals) who are NRA⁵⁰ or even abroad but not NRA^Aliens. Aliens not standing on land protected by the constitution come under under the Foreign Affairs functions of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 as a Sovereign Power. See:

HOW TO: How to distinguish “sovereign power” from “proprietary power” in the context of taxation, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-how-to-distinguish-sovereign-power-from-proprietary-power-in-the-context-of-taxation/

A refund suit using our materials is undertaken within the following context. Our materials are intended only relevant to American national NRA⁵⁰ and never NRA^Aliens:

4. CONTEXT AND DEFINITIONS: All words and terms used herein, in all attached forms, and in all communications with to or about me shall be interpreted in the context of only their private, common law, and the Bill of Rights meaning and not the civil or criminal statutory context. This is an exercise of my First Amendment and religious right of freedom from compelled civil, political, and legal association/membership and the privileges/obligations of said membership. This is an equitable proceeding, not a privilege or franchise proceeding. It is intended to secure the return of money unlawfully in your custody which must be returned as a matter of right/law, and not privilege. If I can’t approach the government in equity, then government is acting like God in violation of the First Amendment. 26 USC §7422 provides a remedy at both law and privilege for both nontaxpayers and taxpayers respectively.

[1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 3, Form 1: Short Custom 1040NR Attachment
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf]

The above implements and ensures the following choice of law for all refund proceedings involving the use of our materials:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

A refund lawsuit or tax return using the procedures on this website is equitable rather than statutory because:

1. The terms on the forms are confined to their private context.
2. The 1040-NR identifies the filer as foreign and a “transient foreigner” but not a “foreign person”.
3. The petitioner files as a “nontaxpayer” not subject by avoiding all privileges. They never make the unprovable claim that they ARE NOT a “taxpayer”. See:
   Taxpayer v. Nontaxpayer, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/taxpayer-v-nontaxpayer/
4. Since the petitioner is a non-privileged American national standing on land protected by the Constitution, they have standing to claim the protections against direct taxes on “gross receipts” that the income tax would be because they are not engaged in privileged activities.
5. The statutes don’t impose duties or define “gross income” for American nationals (U.S. nationals) filing as nonresident aliens who don’t VOLUNTEER to make an “effectively connected” election.
6. All privileges/obligations that might give rise to civil statutory jurisdiction are waived. That is what REFUSING the “effectively connected” election does, in fact.
7. All earnings on the tax return are “excluded” and the only thing a “nontaxpayer” can have is “excluded payments”. See:
   Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf
8. The regulation invoked for the refund 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c) recognizes the right to claim an equitable refund by mentioning “excluded” income in 26 U.S.C. §872. That audience is NOT mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §6012 but is added in the case of NRA⁵⁰ U.S. nationals to accommodate the requirements of common law and equity.
9. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights Doctrine do not apply, because no statutory remedy or public property or privilege is invoked or involved.
10. Any judge who attempts to unilaterally change the status of the litigant from PRIVATE (political) to DOMESTIC (civil) is:
    10.1. Violating the First Amendment.
    10.2. Violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
    10.3. Violating the separation of powers by acting in a purely political rather than judicial capacity.

The SEDM Website provides additional resources for equity suits at:

HOT TOPICS: Common Law and Equity Litigation**, SEDM (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/

5.2. Subject of Equity Suit

The main subject of an equity suit on the subject of a refund in this case would be:

1. Did the United States provide consideration that was both asked for and received? This includes deductions in 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). Without consideration, the ability to enforce an equitable obligation does not exist and there is no authority to CIVILLY tax or regulate. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877).

2. Did the United States EXPRESSLY reserve a public property^PUB interest in the consideration after it was received giving rise to United States^SMJ under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2? Without Constitutionally required reasonable notice of a reserved property^PUB interest prior to the payment, it would violate due process.

3. Does the reserved property^PUB interest apply to an American national (“U.S. national” under 22 C.F.R. §51.1 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)) in 26 U.S.C. §871(b) or only to an alien in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)? Social Security reservation is only for aliens in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(3) and government payments or military pensions OTHER than Social Security are not mentioned.

4. Does the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine allow the United States to reserve a property^PUB interest to compel a kickback (tax)?

If the answer to any of the above is NO, the tax is unenforceable as a matter of law and not privilege.

5.3. Is the national government subject to equity jurisdiction?

Equity can reach the national government — but only in specific, carefully defined situations, and never as a blanket rule that “the federal government is always subject to equity.” The real picture is more structured and, honestly, more interesting.

Below is the clearest way to understand it without drifting into the claims made on the page you have open .

1. The United States is subject to equity — but only when Congress or the Constitution allows it

Federal courts inherited the traditional division between law and equity, and the United States can be sued in equity when:

A. Congress waives sovereign immunity

Examples:

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) §702
• Quiet Title Act
• Tucker Act (for certain claims)

These statutes allow injunctions or declaratory relief against federal agencies or officers.

B. The Constitution requires a remedy

This is where the classic doctrines come in:

• Ex parte Young–type suits (prospective relief against officers violating federal law)
• Larson–Dugan ultra vires doctrine (officers acting beyond statutory authority can be enjoined)
• Non‑statutory review (courts can enjoin unconstitutional executive action even without a statute)

These are equitable remedies applied against federal officers, not against the United States as a sovereign defendant.

C. The United States sues in equity

When the federal government initiates litigation, it can invoke equitable remedies (injunctions, receiverships, specific performance, etc.). When it does so, courts may apply equitable defenses against it.

2. What equity does not do

Equity does not:

• eliminate sovereign immunity
• convert the federal government into a “private actor”
• place the United States under the same rules as a private merchant
• override statutes enacted by Congress

Equity is a judicial remedial system, not a jurisdictional override.

3. The key distinction:

Equity binds federal officers far more readily than the federal sovereign.

This is the heart of the Larson–Dugan line of cases:

• If an officer acts within statutory authority → sovereign immunity applies
• If an officer acts beyond statutory authority or unconstitutionally → equity can restrain them

This is why courts routinely issue:

• injunctions against federal agencies
• stays of agency rules
• orders compelling or prohibiting executive action

These are all equitable remedies, but they operate through the officer‑suit mechanism.

4. How this fits your sovereign/proprietary framework

You’ve been developing a model where:

• sovereign power = political authority
• proprietary power = commercial/civil capacity
• equity = internal mechanism protecting unalienable rights

Within mainstream doctrine, the closest alignment is:

• Equity restrains ultra vires or unconstitutional exercises of sovereign power
• Equity treats the government more like a private party when it acts in a proprietary or commercial capacity (e.g., Clearfield Doctrine)

So your instinct that equity “sits inside” the constitutional structure as a check on government power is consistent with how federal courts actually operate — just not in the sweeping way some advocacy sites describe.

5. Bottom line

Yes — the national government is subject to equity, but only through specific channels:

• statutory waivers
• constitutional officer‑suit doctrines
• ultra vires review
• proprietary/commercial actions

It is not a general, universal subjection to equity as if the federal government were simply another private litigant.

5.4. What Title 28 statutes permit equity suits?

You’re asking a clean, doctrinal question here: Which statutes in Title 28 expressly authorize federal courts to hear suits in equity? The answer is that Title 28 does not contain a single “equity jurisdiction statute.” Instead, it contains multiple, scattered grants of jurisdiction or waivers of sovereign immunity that permit federal courts to issue equitable relief.

Below is the structured map you’re looking for.

1. The foundational jurisdictional grant: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

§1331 — Federal Question Jurisdiction

This is the modern backbone. It gives district courts jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Equitable remedies are available under §1331 unless Congress has withdrawn them.

This is the basis for:

• Ex parte Young–type injunctions
• Non‑statutory review of unconstitutional federal action
• APA-based injunctions

2. The historic equity grant: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity)

§1332 — Diversity Jurisdiction

This is not “about equity,” but it is one of the two original heads of jurisdiction (law and equity) inherited from the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Federal courts sitting in diversity may issue equitable remedies just as state courts could.

3. The officer‑suit statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1651

These are the closest things to explicit equity‑enabling statutes.

§1361 — Mandamus against federal officers

Allows district courts to compel federal officers to perform nondiscretionary duties. Mandamus is historically an extraordinary equitable remedy.

§1651 — The All Writs Act

Authorizes federal courts to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdiction, including:

• injunctions
• stays
• writs of prohibition
• writs of mandamus (when §1361 doesn’t apply)

This is a major equity‑supporting statute.

4. The sovereign‑immunity waivers that allow equitable suits

These statutes don’t grant jurisdiction; they permit suits for equitable relief by waiving immunity.

§702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (not in Title 28, but essential)

Allows suits seeking:

• injunctions
• declaratory judgments
• vacatur of agency action

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) — Little Tucker Act

Allows certain non‑tort claims against the United States, including specific performance in limited contexts.

28 U.S.C. § 1491 — Tucker Act (Court of Federal Claims)

Allows some equitable relief incidental to monetary claims.

28 U.S.C. § 2410 — Quiet Title Act

Allows suits to quiet title against the United States — an equitable action.

28 U.S.C. § 2409a — Real property disputes

Another equity‑based waiver.

5. Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202)

This is not “equity” in the historical sense, but it is an equitable‑type remedy.

§2201 — Declaratory judgments

§2202 — Further necessary or proper relief

Federal courts may issue declarations and then enforce them with equitable remedies.

6. Habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255)

Habeas is historically an equitable remedy. Title 28 contains the entire habeas framework.

7. Summary of the key Title 28 statutes that enable equity

Here’s the distilled list:

Statute	What it does	Equity relevance
§1331	Federal question jurisdiction	Allows equitable remedies unless withdrawn
§1332	Diversity jurisdiction	Federal courts sit with full equitable powers
§1361	Mandamus against federal officers	Classic equitable remedy
§1651	All Writs Act	Authorizes injunctions, stays, writs
§1346(a)(2)	Little Tucker Act	Some equitable relief
§1491	Tucker Act	Incidental equitable relief
§2410	Quiet Title Act	Equitable action against U.S.
§2409a	Real property disputes	Equitable relief
§2201–2202	Declaratory Judgment Act	Equitable‑type remedies
§2241–2255	Habeas corpus	Historically equitable

Bottom line

There is no single “equity jurisdiction statute” in Title 28. Instead, equity flows from:

1. General jurisdiction grants (especially §1331)
2. The All Writs Act (§1651)
3. Mandamus (§1361)
4. Declaratory Judgment Act (§§2201–2202)
5. Specific sovereign‑immunity waivers

Together, these form the modern architecture of federal equitable jurisdiction.