Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)

LINK TO CASE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10657110310496192378

SIGNIFICANCE:

  1. Deals with citizens abroad who file a 1040 as “U.S. persons” under 26 U.S.C. 911.
  2. Establishes the income tax as a world wide tax applying to everyone everywhere in the world who files the 1040.
  3. Establishes government protection abroad as a “benefit” that must be paid for.
  4. Establishes “U.S. person” status as VOLUNTARY for American nationals born within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.
  5. President Taft, the guy who proposed the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909 and got it fraudulently ratified as President heard this case as the Chief Justice.

The fact that the “citizen* of the United States****(government, not geography)” that the income tax is imposed upon in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) is a voluntary franchise office as held by this case actually makes it much harder to understand and convey to others. Most think, “Because I’m a ‘citizen,’ I am a ‘U.S. person.'” But it’s an election that transcends domicile, and the franchisee is a CIVIL “citizen**+D” within the civil jurisdiction of the “United States.”

“In other words, the principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the [person who ELECTS the CIVIL STATUTORY FRANCHISE STATUS OF] citizen [on a 1040 Tax form like Cook did] and his property wherever found and, therefore, has the power to make the benefit complete. Or to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, and was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation [CIVIL FRANCHISE STATUS ELECTION] as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen. The consequence of the relations is that the native citizen who is taxed may have domicile, and the property from which his income is derived may have situs, in a foreign country and the tax be legal — the government having power to impose the tax.

[Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47, 56 (1924);SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10657110310496192378]

The U.S. Supreme Court in the above HID the main source of its jurisdiction to enforce upon Cook by NOT mentioning that the ORIGIN of it was his “election” to be treated as a privileged “U.S. person” by filing a 1040 form at the time and checking the box labelled “Are you a citizen or resident of the United States”. See for yourself:

Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), Citizenship of George W. Cook, Exhibit #01.025
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.025-CookVTait-Citizenship.pdf

They didn’t have the 1040-NR form at the time and only had the 1040, and that form required an election to be a “U.S. person”. That election process was first offered on the 1920 1040 form so that people could OPT OUT and choose nonresident alien by simply NOT checking that box. Today, you make the same election by simply filing the 1040 and avoid the election by filing the 1040-NR. This is why it is imperative to file the CORRECT FOREIGN tax return, the 1040-NR, and properly aver status in all litigation as “Citizen of the State of New York and resident of the borough of Brooklyn” (for example).