1. INTRODUCTION

Extraterritorial civil jurisdiction is one of the most misunderstood areas of federal law. Governments often appear to exercise civil power over people and property located outside their territorial boundaries, but in the United States system this power is never inherent, never geographical, and never automatic. It must arise from one of four lawful sources: (1) military or foreign‑affairs functions, (2) public property or public offices, (3) federal officers acting in their official capacity, or (4) express or tacit consent.

Understanding these sources is essential because each one creates a different pathway by which a person may become subject to federal civil authority even while physically located outside federal territory. In the context of the Internal Revenue Code, this distinction is decisive: the income tax is not a geographical tax but a public‑office excise, and its extraterritorial reach depends entirely on statutory status, consent, and the public‑property doctrine.

This document provides a clear, structured method to prove or disprove extraterritorial jurisdiction in any civil context. It reorganizes the governing authorities into a four‑part test, a doctrinal flowchart, and a summary table so that litigators, researchers, and analysts can evaluate jurisdictional claims with precision.

2. THE FOUR‑PART JURISDICTION TEST

This test converts your doctrinal material into a clean diagnostic tool.

TEST 1 — Military or Foreign‑Affairs Jurisdiction

Authority: 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1)

Question: Does the government’s claim arise from war powers, foreign affairs, alien regulation, international commerce, or protection of statutory citizens abroad?

Indicators:

• War‑making or national‑security functions
• Passport‑based protection
• Presence test under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)
• FSIA‑related actions
• Treasury sanctions

If yes, extraterritorial jurisdiction is valid. If no, proceed to Test 2.

TEST 2 — Public‑Property / Public‑Office Jurisdiction

Authority: 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2); Article IV §3 cl.2

Question: Is the person claiming or using federal public property, federal benefits, or a federal statutory office?

Indicators:

• Use of federal civil statuses (“taxpayer”, “individual”, “citizen”, “resident”)
• Exercise of “trade or business” (defined as “functions of a public office”)
• Custody or benefit of federal privileges
• Any statutory capacityPUB

If yes, jurisdiction attaches wherever the office or benefit is used — even outside federal territory. If no, proceed to Test 3.

TEST 3 — Federal‑Officer Jurisdiction

Authority: 44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1)

Question: Is the person a federal officer, agent, or employee?

Indicators:

• IRS enforcement definitions of “person” (26 U.S.C. §§6671(b), 7343)
• Federal employment
• Federal corporate offices
• Federal partnership offices

If yes, jurisdiction attaches regardless of location. If no, proceed to Test 4.

TEST 4 — Express or Tacit Consent / Comity

Authority: Modern comity doctrine; election doctrines

Question: Has the person expressly or tacitly consented to be treated as a federal statutory person?

Indicators:

• Filing a 1040 or 1040NR
• Declaring oneself a “U.S. individual” or “U.S. person”
• Accepting federal benefits
• Silence or acquiescence in court
• Judicially‑imputed consent

If yes, jurisdiction attaches even outside federal territory. If no, extraterritorial civil jurisdiction does not exist.

For geographical definitions of ‘United States,’ see Appendix A.

3. FLOWCHART: EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Code

                          START
                            │
                            ▼
          Is the claim tied to military or foreign affairs?
                            │
               YES ─────────┴─────────► Jurisdiction VALID
                            │
                            ▼
        Is the person using federal public property or a
                     federal statutory office?
                            │
               YES ─────────┴─────────► Jurisdiction VALID
                            │
                            ▼
            Is the person a federal officer/employee?
                            │
               YES ─────────┴─────────► Jurisdiction VALID
                            │
                            ▼
      Has the person expressly or tacitly consented to be
            treated as a federal statutory person?
                            │
               YES ─────────┴─────────► Jurisdiction VALID
                            │
                            ▼
                     Jurisdiction INVALID

4. AUTHORITIES FOR EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Section 4 identifies the authorities that establish the lawful sources of extraterritorial civil jurisdiction and explains how each one fits into the Four‑Part Test.

4.1. Summary Table of Authorities

Authority	Principle	Use in Jurisdiction Analysis
Downes v. Bidwell	“Without limitation as to place” — jurisdiction follows government, not geography	Supports public‑property jurisdiction
Cook v. Tait	Taxation based on statutory status, not domicile	Supports consent‑based jurisdiction
Stanton v. Baltic Mining	Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power	Limits geographical taxation
5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1)	Military/foreign‑affairs exemption	Source #1 of extraterritorial jurisdiction
5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)	Public property / public offices	Source #2
44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1)	Federal officers	Source #3
Modern comity doctrine	Consent = privilege	Source #4
26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)	“Trade or business” = public office	Shows IRC is office‑based
26 U.S.C. §§6671(b), 7343	“Person” = federal officer	Limits enforcement targets

4.2. Detailed Explanation of Each Authority

Below is an itemized list of sources of extraterritorial jurisdiction and an explanation of each:

1. A military or foreign affairs function of the United States.  5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1). This includes:
   1.1 Making or executing war. This is the Department of Defense (DOD), Title 50 of the U.S. Code, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.), 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47.
   1.2 Regulating aliens within the country. The presence test at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) implements the tax aspect of this.
   1.3 Protecting VOLUNTARY STATUTORY citizens (not constitutional citizens) abroad. This is done through passports, 26 U.S.C. §911 which pays for the protection, the Department of State (DOS), and the military.
   1.4 International commerce with foreign nations. This is done through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97, U.S.C.I.S., Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the foreign affairs supervision of the federal courts.
   1.5 Economic sanctions on foreign countries and political rulers imposed by the Department of the Treasury.
2. A matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.  5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2). Note that:
   2.1. ” Taxes” do NOT fall in the category of “public property, loans, grants, or benefits” , but the U.S. supreme court identified them as a “quasi-contract” in Milwaukee v. White, 296 U.S. 268 (1935).
   2.2. In the case of “agency management or personnel”, they are talking about public officers serving within the national government as EXPRESSLY GEOGRAPHICALLY authorized by 4 U.S.C. §72 and NOT elsewhere. We’ll give you a HINT, there IS no “express legislative authorization” for “taxpayer” offices to be exercised outside the District of Columbia as required, so all those serving in such an office extraterritorially are DE FACTO officers (Form #05.043). The income tax is an excise tax upon the “trade or business” franchise, which is defined in in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”, but those offices may not lawfully be exercised outside the District of Columbia. That is why the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) is defined as the District of Columbia and NOWHERE expressly extended outside the District of Columbia or the Federal statutory “State” defined in 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
   2.3. Civil statutory statuses such as “taxpayer”, “citizen”, “resident”, and “person” AND the PUBLIC RIGHTS and privileges that attach to them are PROPERTY legislatively created and therefore owned by the national government. Those claiming these statuses are in receipt, custody, or “benefit” of federal privileges no matter where they physically are, and thus are subject to Congress power to “make all needful rules respecting the Territory and other property” granted by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.
3. Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof.  44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1).
4. EXPRESS and INFORMED consent or comity in some form. Note that NO ONE can consent FOR YOU. YOU have to consent YOURSELF. Presently, “comity” is legally defined as “willingness to grant a privilege”. It USED to be defined as MUTUAL consent or agreement of both parties. This has the INSIDIOUS effect that it is OK for a judge to consent FOR YOU, or you to consent sub silentio or by acquiescence. The RESULT is that you are treated AS IF you are a privileged agent or officer of the state, which we call a “straw man”, often without compensation. This is CRIMINAL HUMAN TRAFFICKING and CRIMINAL IDENTITY THEFT (Form #05.046) if you didn’t KNOWINGLY consent. The purpose of this SOPHISTRY is to procure your consent INVISIBLY, so they don’t have to recognize or respect your sovereignty or autonomy. After all, they think they know better than you about what is good for you. See:
   4.1. Hot Issues: Invisible Consent, SEDM (OFFSITE LINK)
   https://sedm.org/invisible-consent/
   4.2. How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

The above four items collectively are referred to as “extraterritorial jurisdiction“. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is defined as SUBJECT MATTER jurisdiction over PUBLIC property (Form #12.025) physically situated OUTSIDE of the EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the national government under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. Congress has jurisdiction over its property and the offices it creates no matter WHERE they physically reside or are lawfully exercised, INCLUDING within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), which ironically was about SLAVES. Those who CONSENT to be statutory “taxpayers” would fall in this same category of “slave” and are treated literally as CHATTEL of the national government. HOWEVER, the Constitution confers NO EXPRESS authorization for Congress to use TACIT and PERSONAL BRIBES or GRANTS of its physical or chattel PUBLIC property or “benefits” to CREATE NEW public offices or appoint new officers to de facto offices that are NOT created by an EXPRESS lawful oath or appointment. Any attempts to do so are CRIMINAL OFFENSES under 18 U.S.C. §§201, 210, 211. More about public offices and officers in:

1. The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
2. Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You are a “Public Officer” for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyThiefOrPubOfficer.pdf
3. Proof That There Is a “Straw man”, Form #05.037
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf

For the statutory definition of ‘trade or business,’ see Section 4.1.

5. EXTRATERRITORIALITY OF INCOME TAX

“Income tax is the most common context in which extraterritorial civil jurisdiction is asserted. Section 5 applies the Four‑Part Test specifically to the Internal Revenue Code, demonstrating why federal income tax is extraterritorial only through public‑office doctrine, statutory status, and consent.”

5.1. Core Principles: Why Income Tax Is Extraterritorial Only Through Public‑Office Doctrine

Sovereign States of the Union are not “territory” of the national government for purposes of Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. The Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any new geographical taxing power over private labor or private property located within constitutional states. The Supreme Court confirmed this explicitly in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, holding that the Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation.”

Therefore, the federal income tax has always been an excise upon public offices created by Congress — statutory “taxpayer,” “citizen,” “individual,” and “person” — and never a geographical tax on private persons in the states. Its extraterritorial reach arises only when a person:

• occupies a federal statutory office,
• uses federal public property or privileges, or
• consents (expressly or tacitly) to be treated as a federal statutory person.

This doctrinal foundation is consistent with President Taft’s own explanation of the proposed Sixteenth Amendment and the legislative intent behind the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act.

5.2. Authorities Demonstrating the Non‑Geographical Nature of Income Tax

5.2.1. Legislative Intent of the Sixteenth Amendment (Taft, 1909)

President Taft’s June 16, 1909 message to Congress makes clear:

• Congress lacked power to impose an unapportioned direct tax (Pollock).
• The proposed amendment was intended to authorize an excise on corporate privileges.
• The tax was aimed at national corporations, not private individuals in the states.
• “Income” was intended to have the same meaning as in the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act.

Taft stated Congress should propose an amendment:

“conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment…”

Taft could have written “conferring upon the national government the power to levy an income tax,” but instead phrased it as a tax upon the government, consistent with the fact that the tax is imposed upon public offices created by Congress.

The Supreme Court later confirmed that “income” under the Sixteenth Amendment is identical to the meaning used in the 1909 Act, citing:

• Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe
• Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka
• Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert
• Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers
• Eisner v. Macomber
• Goodrich v. Edwards
• United States v. Phellis
• Miles v. Safe Deposit Co.
• Supplee‑Biddle Co.
• Irwin v. Gavit
• Edwards v. Cuba Railroad
• Bowers v. Kerbaugh‑Empire Co.

These cases collectively affirm that “income” is a measure of an excise, not a direct tax on private property.

More on this subject at:

Journey to Sixteenth Amendment, Fed Reserve, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/history/journey-to-16a-fed-reserve-nnot/

5.2.2. Downes v. Bidwell: Taxation Extends Where the Government Extends

In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court held that Congress’s taxing power under Article I, Section 8:

• is “without limitation as to place,”
• extends to “all places over which the government extends,”
• is not tied to geography but to governmental jurisdiction.

This confirms that federal taxation follows public offices and federal property, not land boundaries.

5.2.3. Cook v. Tait: Taxation Based on Statutory Status, Not Domicile

Cook v. Tait is the clearest demonstration of extraterritorial income taxation.

Facts:

• Cook was an American national living in Mexico.
• His domicile was outside the statutory “United States.”
• Under Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, domicile is the sole basis for state income tax — meaning Cook should not owe federal tax.

However, Cook had previously filed a 1040 and declared himself a “U.S. individual,” thereby:

• electing into a federal statutory office (“U.S. person”),
• receiving federal protection abroad (a federal benefit),
• triggering a voluntary excise taxable franchise.

The Court held that liability arose solely from Cook’s statutory status, not his domicile:

“the basis of the power to tax was…upon his relation as citizen to the United States…”

This “citizen” is the statutory civil persona, not the constitutional one.

Thus, Cook proves:

• income tax is extraterritorial,
• but only through public‑office status,
• and only when consent is present.

More about this at:

1. Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
   https://ftsig.org/cook-v-tait-265-u-s-47-1924/
2. Copilot: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) Implications
   https://ftsig.org/copilot-cook-v-tait/

5.2.4. Statutory Definitions of “Person” Limit Enforcement to Federal Officers

The Internal Revenue Code defines “person” for penalty and criminal enforcement purposes:

26 U.S.C. §6671(b):

“includes an officer or employee of a corporation…or a member or employee of a partnership…”

26 U.S.C. §7343:

“includes an officer or employee of a corporation…or a member or employee of a partnership…”

These definitions:

• do not include private Americans,
• cannot be expanded by statutory construction,
• prove that enforcement targets are public officers,
• and that anyone outside these definitions is a volunteer.

This is reinforced in

1. Why Your Government is Either a Thief or You Are a Public Officer for Income Tax Purposes, Form #05.008
   http://sedm.org/whythieforpubofficer
2. Policy Document: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, form #08.023
   https://sedm.org/irsperson

5.2.5. Statutory Geography Confirms the Public‑Office Nature of Income Tax

The IRC defines “United States” geographically in:

• 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9)
• 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10)

as the District of Columbia, not the 50 states.

This place is synonymous with the government under 4 U.S.C. §72.

Thus:

• IRC geography = government property,
• not constitutional land,
• confirming that income tax applies only to public offices.

More on this subject at:

Which “United States?”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/united-states-how-to-discern-geographcial-from-corporate-based-on-context/

5.2.6. “Trade or Business” = Public Office

Under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26):

“trade or business” means the functions of a public office.

Therefore:

• the taxable activity is public‑office activity,
• not private labor,
• and cannot be exercised outside D.C. without express legislative authorization (which does not exist).

Anyone performing such functions outside D.C. is a de facto officer (Form #05.043).

More at:

The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
http://sedm.org/tradeorbusscam

5.2.7. Administrative Procedures Act and Federal Register Act Limit Enforcement Targets

Both Acts restrict direct statutory enforcement to:

1. Military/foreign‑affairs functions (5 U.S.C. §553(a)(1))
2. Public property, public offices, agency personnel (5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2))
3. Federal officers and agencies (44 U.S.C. §1505(a)(1))

These categories do not include private Americans in constitutional states.

More on this subject at:

Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/chaljurworkbook

5.3. Application: Why Income Tax Is Extraterritorial Only Through Consent, Status, and Public Property

Putting all authorities together:

1. The Sixteenth Amendment did not create geographical taxing power.
2. Income tax is an excise on federal offices and privileges.
3. Federal taxation follows governmental jurisdiction, not land.
4. Statutory “citizen,” “individual,” “taxpayer,” and “person” are public offices.
5. Filing a 1040 is an election into such an office.
6. Enforcement applies only to public officers under §§6671(b) and 7343.
7. IRC geography = District of Columbia, not the states.
8. “Trade or business” = public office.
9. APA and FRA restrict enforcement to federal officers and federal property.
10. Therefore, extraterritorial income tax applies only when a person:

• occupies a federal statutory office,
• uses federal public property or benefits, or
• consents expressly or tacitly.

Thus, the federal income tax is extraterritorial only when a person voluntarily enters a federal statutory office or accepts federal public property, and never by mere physical location.

More on this subject at:

Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/

6. HOW TO APPLY THE FOUR‑PART TEST

Section 6 shows how to apply the Four‑Part Test to real cases, using the Internal Revenue Code as the most common example.

Example: IRS asserts jurisdiction over John, a private American living in Texas.

1. Test 1 — Military/Foreign Affairs? No.
2. Test 2 — Public Property / Public Office? Did John file a 1040? Did he claim “individual”? Did he accept federal benefits? If yes → jurisdiction attaches. If no → proceed.
3. Test 3 — Federal Officer? No.
4. Test 4 — Consent? Did John sign anything? Did he acquiesce in court? If no → jurisdiction invalid.

7. COMMON ERRORS IN JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS

1. Confusing United StatesG with United StatesJ
2. Assuming geography creates jurisdiction
3. Assuming domicile creates jurisdiction
4. Assuming “citizen” means constitutional citizen
5. Assuming “person” includes private Americans
6. Assuming filing a form is mandatory
7. Assuming silence is not consent

8. QUICK JURISDICTION CHECKLIST

1. ___Identify the claimed jurisdictional hook
2. ___Apply Test 1
3. ___Apply Test 2
4. ___Apply Test 3
5. ___Apply Test 4
6. ___Identify any PUB/PRI connectors
7. ___Identify any consent triggers
8. ___Identify any statutory offices
9. ___Identify any public‑property benefits
10. ___Determine whether jurisdiction exists

9. FINAL SYNTHESIS

Extraterritorial civil jurisdiction is never geographical. It is always functional, status‑based, or consent‑based. The federal government may reach outside its territorial boundaries only when one of four conditions is met:

(1) the matter involves military or foreign‑affairs functions,

(2) the person is using federal public property or occupying a federal statutory office,

(3) the person is a federal officer or employee, or

(4) the person has expressly or tacitly consented to be treated as a federal statutory person.

When none of these conditions exist, extraterritorial civil jurisdiction is legally impossible. This includes most private Americans physically located in constitutional states of the Union who have not elected into federal statutory offices. Conversely, when any of these conditions do exist, jurisdiction attaches regardless of geography — including abroad.

The key to proving or disproving extraterritorial jurisdiction is therefore not physical location but capacity, status, and consent. By applying the four‑part test and the flowchart above, any jurisdictional claim can be evaluated with doctrinal precision, revealing whether the government’s authority is lawful, consent‑based, or an impermissible PUB/PRI connector.

---

APPENDIX: GEOGRAPHICAL TERMS

The Appendix provides the geographical‑term definitions necessary to correctly interpret federal statutes and regulations.

A very frequent point of confusion and misunderstanding even within the legal profession is the definition of geographical terms in the various contexts in which they are used.  The table below is provided to clear up this confusion in order that people do not misinterpret geographical terms by applying them outside their intended context.  Using this page is VERY important for those who will be reading and researching state and federal law.  The differences in meaning within the various contexts are primarily a consequence of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

Law	Federal constitution	Federal statutes	Federal regulations	State constitutions	State statutes	State regulations
Author	Union States/ ”We The People”	Federal Government		“We The People”	State Government
“state”	Foreign country	Union state or foreign country	Union state or foreign country	Other Union state or federal government	Other Union state or federal government	Other Union state or federal government
“State”	Union state	Federal state	Federal state	Union state	Union state	Union state
“in this State” or “in the State”[1]	NA	NA	NA	NA	Federal enclave within state	Federal enclave within state
“State”[2](State Revenue and taxation code only)	NA	NA	NA	NA	Federal enclave within state	Federal enclave within state
“several States”	Union states collectively[3]	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively	Federal “States” collectively
“United States”	states of the Union collectively	Federal United States**	Federal United States**	United States* the country	Federal United States**	Federal United States**

What the above table clearly shows is that the word “State” in the GENERAL context of MOST federal statutes and regulations means (not includes!) federal States only under Title 48 of the U.S. Code[4], and these areas do not include any of the 50 Union States.  This is true in most cases and especially in the Internal Revenue Code. 

---

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 6017

[2] See California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 17018

[3] See, for instance, U.S. Constitution Article IV, Section 2.

[4] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/48