DEBATE: All “income” in the I.R.C. is “foreign”
EDITORIAL:
This debate deals with the subject of whether ALL income in the I.R.C. Subtitle A is “foreign income” and WHAT precisely foreign income means. The article that sparked this debate is:
What YOUR GOVERNMENT Thinks “Foreign” Means, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/what-your-government-thinks-foreign-means/
If you understand this debate, you will be able to prove with evidence that you earn no taxable income as An American national doing business with other American nationals in your state because such earnings are not “income”, which is always foreign in the Internal Revenue Code.
As far as “foreign income” in relation to “U.S. persons”, 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) says they owe tax on earnings from within and without the “United States” as used in 26 U.S.C. §861-862, “wherever resident”, meaning no matter where they physically are. The national government can lawfully do this because the status is an office they created and own. We believe its pointless to argue that “U.S. persons” only have taxable income when abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911, because the income tax is upon the office as USPI, and not the officer filling said office. Thus:
- “foreign income” in the context of Internal Revenue Code , 26 U.S.C. Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part I means CIVILLY foreign, not POLITICALLY foreign.
- As long as your earnings or property are NOT connected or “effectively connected” to a “trade or business”, they are private and civilly foreign and nontaxable.
- You can’t be CIVILLY foreign as long as you are exercising government agency or office. You must be a nonresident alien for your “person” to be civilly foreign.
The following older regulation explains that the term “resident” in the context of those making privileged elections does NOT mean a physical location, but relates to the Minimum Contacts Doctrine that is a product of consent and election instead:
26 C.F.R. §301.7701-5 Domestic, foreign, resident, and nonresident persons.
A domestic corporation is one organized or created in the United States, including only the States (and during the periods when not States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii), and the District of Columbia, or under the law of the United States or of any State or Territory. A foreign corporation is one which is not domestic. A domestic corporation is a resident corporation even though it does no business and owns no property in the United States. A foreign corporation engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident foreign corporation, and a foreign corporation not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident foreign corporation. A partnership engaged in trade or business within the United States is referred to in the regulations in this chapter as a resident partnership, and a partnership not engaged in trade or business within the United States, as a nonresident partnership. Whether a partnership is to be regarded as resident or nonresident is not determined by the nationality or residence of its members or by the place in which it was created or organized.
[Amended by T.D. 8813, Federal Register: February 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 21), Page 4967-4975][IMPORTANT NOTE!: Whether a “person” is a “resident” or “nonresident” has NOTHING to do with the nationality or residence, but with whether it is engaged in a “trade or business”]
The above reveals that there are TWO ways to become “resident”:
- The presence test in the case of aliens, resulting in SMJ
- Consent or election under the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court.
These two mechanisms are revealed in the following article:
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
Our filing procedures say that if #2 above is imposed WITHOUT consent by equivocating definitions or changing definitions of words to the statutory context, THEY are the ones making consent or election to OUR franchise contract at instead of us:
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf
This turns the tables and makes them the Buyer and YOU the Merchant selling YOUR franchise. As long as you retain ownership of your private property and don’t donate it by effectively connecting it, YOU get to make all the rules just like them under 4:3:2.
More on this subject at:
- Acquiring a Civil Status, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/ - DEFINITIONS: “worldwide income”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/definitions-worldwide-income/ - DEFINITIONS: “foreign income”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/definitions-foreign-income/ - Authorities on “income”, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/income.htm
QUESTION 1:
Is it still your belief that U.S. persons are only taxed on foreign-sourced income?
ANSWER 1:
Yes. It fails the extraterritoriality notice requirements of SCOTUS and there are no presence tests within states of the Union, nor is “United States” expressly defined to include states of the Union and CAN’T be. And, its anti-governmental to setup a scheme whereby people in the states are bribed with benefits not enumerated in the constitution to give up private rights, AND it violates most state constitutions for people to serve as state and federal officers at the same time.
Extraterritoriality notice has to come from congress in the statutes, not a judge. See section 6
https://ftsig.org/what-your-government-thinks-foreign-means/
There are NO internal revenue districts in states of the Union, etc. etc.
These same limitations, however, DO NOT apply to federal enclaves and its ok there as confirmed by AI:
California Revenue and Taxation Code even recognizes enclaves as the only “State” as does this:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StateIncomeTax.pdf
Consent can’t enlarge federal powers either, per New York v. United States. Thus, an ELECTION cannot break down the separation of powers.
Those who continue to promote the idea that anyone can consent to anything, including the above illegal or unconstitutional activities, are practicing treason.
This is not an “extreme” or “dogmatic” position, but merely an advocacy of the rule of law. If this position gets you in trouble in court, the judge is corrupt and needs to be impeached or removed. If you’re more interested in personal security than speaking the truth on this issue, this isn’t about justice anymore and we have an idolatry problem.
QUESTION 2:
Well, territory isn’t really the issue—but federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) or not. By Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ), I mean authority, control, or ownership over specific PUBLIC property or rights through the civil law enacted by the national government and enforced through judicial process. The idea is that Congress can only enact civil laws that control, tax, or regulate PUBLIC property. The Constitution and JUSTICE as legally defined requires that they NOT tax or regulate PRIVATE property until you voluntarily pursue a privilege with it.
If federal SMJ, the domestic locality is the “United StatesG.” If not federal SMJ, then it’s a state, territory, possession, or foreign nation-state jurisdictional issue. If federal SMJ, the territory of the state is irrelevant and it becomes a “United StatesG” issue under the principal of uniform laws. No?
The territory is their way of articulating either a domestic locality With Respect To (wrt) federal SMJ, or a non-domestic locality wrt federal SMJ. But either way, federal SMJ preempts state jurisdiction, and thus, state territory.
For third party readers reading this debate, Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ) is further described on the About->Establishing USPI through the Laws of Property menu. The direct link is at:
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/establishing-uspi-thru-laws-of-property/
How is that incorrect?
ANSWER 2:
If none of the above things are a problem, you need your head examined. Where did you get reasonable notice as required by the constitution with a presence test or a definition that states are expressly included in the locality where “trade or business” offices can lawfully be exercised as required by 4 U.S.C. 72?
States are not “territory” within the meaning of federal law so they are extraterritorial. ALL the extraterritorial localities have notice other than states of the Union.
Separation of powers and maintaining it, and avoiding corruption or conflict of interest or violations of the dual office prohibitions of all states is the issue.
ONLY where individual rights are NOT unalienable can any of this happen. Which means in territories, possessions, or abroad. Otherwise, the government is violating the purpose of its creation, which is the protection of private, unalienable rights and property. See:
Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
QUESTION 3:
How do we get past the longstanding convention that U.S. persons are taxed on worldwide income? And do you think that has lingered because this argument has never been presented?
ANSWER 3:
The obligation is imposed FIRST in a regulation and not a statute by the secretary. Only people who work for him can have the obligation. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 301, he can only write regulations that affect people and property in his own department.
Its just like the passport statement you used: no implementing regulations so its limited to government officers per the administrative procedures act and the federal register act. Government can only tax or regulate itself. You have to volunteer to join them before they can tax you. SCOTUS agreed with that in Downes:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
If it works with a passport, why shouldn’t it work everywhere? Where is the flaw in the below?
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf
Anything they can’t enforce without a “domestic” election is voluntary by definition. The fact that no one else knows this is not surprising. We are trail blazers.
THIS is the same approach I used in my injunction case to get a contempt hearing dismissed. The judge was speechless. This has been my approach from the beginning, btw.
QUESTION 4:
Two questions then:
- You still contend that we are NRAs, even when abroad, right?
- The majority of the people (99.99%) in this country are ascribing to themselves a “U.S. person” status incorrectly, as it only would apply to “citizens” earning income abroad, and everyone else (the 99.99%) should be filing NRA and not subject, right?
ANSWER 4:
That’s the only way it can lawfully operate consistent with the organic law and free of crime or conflict or interest.
A government cannot be created to protect private property and private rights, and then turn 180 degrees around and make a profitable franchise out of alienating these same rights. Absolute separation between public and private is paramount.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
But private only exists on constitutionally protected land. Everywhere else is fair game, including federal enclaves. Copilot agrees:
What’s wrong with the above? I can’t find anything. Anything else essentially amounts to consenting or electing to commit a crime, which courts cannot enforce the consequences of.
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhyCrimefileReturn.pdf
This is why the code is silent on the constitutional states. More at:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StateIncomeTax.pdf
Any caselaw you hand me in rebuttal will inevitably deal with people who didn’t file as NRAs or didn’t file at all. Its never been rebutted for the following fact pattern correctly evident in the administrative record of a litigant:
- “national of the United States” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22) and 22 C.F.R. §51.1.
- Not domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government nor representing a CIVIL fiction of law so domiciled. Thus, choice of law is state common law and constitution and not federal CIVIL law (such as the Internal Revenue Code) under 28 U.S.C. §1652 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. Thus, they are “civilly foreign” but at the same time DO NOT come under the foreign affairs function of the government under Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 of the Constitution so there is no SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over them while standing on land protected by the constitution.
- No “effectively connected” elections under 26 U.S.C. §864(c) or deductions under 26 U.S.C. §162 and 26 U.S.C. §873
- Files the 1040NR instead of the 1040.
- Do NOT file the Schedule OI or NEC, which both pertain ONLY to aliens who are nonresident and not to “nationals of the United States” like me.
- Not subject to the presence test in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) because not an alien. A nonresident everywhere in the WORLD.
- Earnings under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) do not apply because no “effective connection”.
- All earnings are PRIVATE property protected only by the bill of rights and the common law and not civil statutory law.
- A “citizen” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) and the Fourteenth Amendment.
- No “citizen of the United States” election under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b), where “United States” in that context clearly means “domestic” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) and not any specific geography. This is proven in:
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf - A “nonresident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) by virtue of being NEITHER the CIVIL FICTION “citizen of the United States” or CIVIL FICTION “resident of the United States” described in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b), where “United States” in that context is not a geography or country, but a fictional corporation described in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) as “domestic”. The IRS Form 1040NR has RECOGNIZED over 20 years the ability of “U.S. nationals” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22) and 22 C.F.R. §51.1 to file the 1040NR. See:
Tax Return History-Citizenship, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship.htm - Not consenting to or representing any civil fiction legislatively created and therefore owned by Congress as public property. See Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 69-70, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983) and United States v. Babcock, 250 U.S. 328, 331 (1919). Congress can only CIVILLY regulate or tax or control CIVILLY those CIVIL fictions which it creates as privileges, and those who voluntarily adopt said statuses through either consensual domicile or an election of some kind. By possessing or using privileges connected with these civil statuses, congress procures the power to regulate or tax over those invoking the rights attached to the statuses they voluntarily adopt.
- Filed an identity theft affidavit in connection with all uses of civil statutory statuses by any government against them as indicated in:
Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
QUESTION 5:
Man! This would be even more enormous if true. So far I cannot rebut this…..
ANSWER 5:
The judge couldn’t either in our member’s case in _____. That may be why they are still walking the street instead of dying in jail like Irwin Schiff, the 1040 filer.
This is VERY SERIOUS business. We GOTTA get this right.
QUESTION 6:
I agree—100%.
Where does this assertion of “worldwide income” come from?
ANSWER 6:
26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b) ONLY. Its not in IRC 1, so it violates delegated authority of the secretary, UNLESS the statuses is pertain to are HIS creation and property within his department. U.S. v. Calamaro
That’s all covered in:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
But “worldwide income” includes only FOREIGN income per I.R.C. 861-862:
https://ftsig.org/what-your-government-thinks-foreign-means/
So its a multilayer trick.
As long as they never define “foreign income” and you can’t prove what it means, you’ll fall for the trick.
“Foreign income” means earnings of:
- American nationals abroad who make an “expressly authorized” U.S. person election AUTHORIZED ONLY by 26 U.S.C. 911
- NRA aliens at home with a foreign domicile and not standing on land protected by the constitution.
The above are constrained to the foreign affairs functions of congress, which is plenary and involve federal preemption. Do you believe jesus or not in section 1 of the last link or not? If you don’t, then you’re slapping him in the face.
QUESTION 7:
I do believe Him. But that’s not to say our government does.
ANSWER 7:
SCOTUS agrees with him. Read section 1 of the above.
QUESTION 8:
What’s the practical result then of a stateside U.S. person election?
- It’s an incorrect election (our hypothesis)
- Thus, they are not in a position to rebut anything despite the truly taxable source (hypothesis) of foreign income.
Right? I want to make sure I have perfect understanding of the hypothesis. What you are saying is very plausible for sure. But my mind comes back to things like the “Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909,” which seems to undergird our earlier hypothesis of a domestic election.
ANSWER 8:
It’s not only an INCORRECT election, its a CRIME as proven in the following:
Why It’s a Crime for a Private American National to File a 1040 Income Tax Return, Form #08.021
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhyCrimefileReturn.pdf
Not truly taxable unless its “foreign income” and they are abroad.. So it’s factually incorrect. They can’t WAIVE by election the direct tax prohibitions in states of the Union and thereby destroy the separation of powers. It’s on gross receipts (gross income).
- If they sign a 1040 averring its income, do you think a covetous judge is going to argue with them?
- Federal (and not state) corporations don’t have constitutional protections. Bill of rights and direct taxation doesn’t protect them. But only insofar as they have a situs or domicile within the exclusive jurisdiction of congress. Everything in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8 involves foreign affairs and “foreign income”. Corporations use the same thing as individuals: 26 U.S.C. 861-862 (foreign income). Its a tariff on aliens at home and citizens abroad, and both of these are voluntary privileges involving ONLY foreign affairs. So its an avoidable indirect excise.
It CANNOT be an indirect excise UNLESS it’s somehow avoidable. Scotus says on this “demand is lacking”.
As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U.S. 363 supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of 152*152 privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
[Flint v. Stone Tracy Co, 220 U.S. 107, 151-152 (1911);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17853944152368373401]
QUESTION 9:
Dude! This is AMAZING if true!!
ANSWER 9:
Added section 17 starting on p. 60
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/WhyCrimefileReturn.pdf
QUESTION 10:
So, read 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(b) and then read 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f)(3)(i). This may shed some clues on the “worldwide income” charade.
ANSWER 10:
Just posted:
Definitions: “Worldwide income”
https://ftsig.org/definitions-worldwide-income/
So the thing to spend your time on is what is “foreign income”? Search for and do some ai on that. I already have but haven’t yet published anything.
I just added THIS, but it still needs LOTS of work:
https://ftsig.org/definitions-foreign-income/
A NEW frontier to bust open, my friend
I think “foreign income” is GROSS RECEIPTS connected to alien privileges or elected privileges of American nationals only. They ain’t NEVER gonna admit that kind of limitation on their taxing authority.
It will be a hunt for hens teeth to find proof on this subject, as a result.
Kinda like the search for the meaning of the CSP (Citizenship Status Profile) code. Its a HUGE third rail issue and the elephant in the room for just about EVERYTHING, hidden in plain site in the innocuous Title of a section but not the body of the statutes. AND it’s also buried 4 layers deep in the regs at 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. Recall that was the focal point for Larken Rose’s 26 U.S.C. 861 position, btw. Larken focused on 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f) as well, but from a COMPLETELY different angle. 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8 equates “source” with geography instead of property type like Pollock did.
QUESTION 11:
Look at I.R.C. 865(g)!
I think “foreign income” in the title of Subchapter N, Part I means income through a foreign geography (without “United StatesG”). Sec. 861 for NRAAs and 26 U.S.C. 862 for U.S. persons.
You may darn well be correct on this!
Per our working hypothesis:
It would seem the “worldwide income” scam occurs through 26 U.S.C. 863 via 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. What this means is that certain U.S. (government) sourced income makes its way to the U.S. person abroad via a foreign country through the “Special rules for determining source” under 26 U.S.C. 863.
The practical effect of this is that the U.S. person is taxed on ForeignS income from a foreign geographical source and U.S. sourced (domesticS) income from a foreign geographical source as well.
This gives them the ability to say a U.S. person is taxed on worldwide income—which is true—it’s just that the U.S. person would not be taxed on ALL worldwide income.
Sets….subsets—the same deceptive pattern.
I think the ad valorem property tax works the same way. It applies to certain interests within the “United States.”
ANSWER 11:
Expanded:
https://ftsig.org/definitions-worldwide-income/
QUESTION 12:
Imagine how the Form 8275 might read going forward: Payer compelled a W-4 in the private sector. I am a non-alien nonresident alien located in the State of XYZ. The tax does not apply to me.
ANSWER 12:
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/nonresident-aliens-sourcing-of-income
EVERYTHING in this table is “property”
We know that only “aliens” fit the “international” category in the upper left corner of this page.
QUESTION 13:
Of course, ALL NRAs referenced are aliens!
Yes!!
Now, very quickly, does this change your mind about who THE “citizen” of the “United States” is as contemplated in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A)?
ANSWER 13:
Someone abroad who made an election just like cook in Cook v. Tait under now 26 U.S.C. 911. NO.
QUESTION 14:
Is that a legally legitimate election in your mind?
ANSWER 14:
Protection abroad is always a privilege. But according to Thomas Freed (tax-freedom.com), the original purpose of the 1040 form was for use by withholding agents on aliens under 26 U.S.C. 1461 with U.S. source income.
The above comes from acrobat p. 135 of the American Tax Bible relating to Brushaber
American Tax Bible, Tax-freedom.com
http://www.americantaxbible.com
The above comes from p. 134 of the same book.
QUESTION 15:
We gotta really analyze this thoroughly! Like you said, this is BIG STUFF!!
ANSWER 15:
The BEST place to hide the truth is right on the tip of the nose of an ignorant, distracted, or self-absorbed person.
QUESTION 16:
I’m beginning to wonder now if even Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court had the full picture! Wow! This is a sinister scheme!
Here’s a question, then a follow-up conundrum.
Do you believe that you and I can legally “effectively connect” to the franchise here in the 50 States?
ANSWER 16:
Not if you have unalienable rights and the separation of powers remains intact because you are standing on land protected by the constitution. Thus you can’t be taxed on “gross receipts” (private property)
QUESTION 17:
Then how would a person go about changing his or her status back to NRA from that of a formerly-made U.S. person election made via Form 1040?
ANSWER 17:
Filing the 1040NR with zero like I just did. 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i)
QUESTION 18:
Ok, so that method is still in tact in your mind.
QUESTION 19:
Where are the architects of this thing? Where do they hang out? DC? NYC?
ANSWER 19:
HELL.
🙂
Satan was a DIABOLICAL NARCISSIST. Psychopath.
Now AI will probably get the job. But we’re fighting fire with fire.
QUESTION 20:
Certainly!! I am very cautiously optimistic about this! This is consistent with something they would do. But there has to be some provision that makes this legal—the voluntary compliance part. There’s so much case law undergirding this thing over the past 100 years!!
Clearly Taft knew what he was doing. Justice White too!
ANSWER 20:
If they treat it as a quasi-contract and Scotus in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) said your power to contract is UNLIMITED, meaning ALIENATION of rights is ok, then from their and a personal standpoint, it would seem legal.
His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
[Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74 (1906);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16698831680912596774]
But functionally it:
- Destroys the separation of powers.
- Corrupts the government.
- Deceives people by procuring their consent invisibly.
- Turns the government from a protector to a predator.
So its evil, immoral, and treasonous.
QUESTION 21:
I agree with your attitude about that—100%! But we have to conclude there are legal, VC (voluntary compliance) provisions, because they structured this thing to do what they are in fact doing—items 1. through 4.
This was their design…their scheme. They don’t care about 1-4. They care only about profits.
ANSWER 21:
Hale v. Henkel was heard the SAME YEAR the Sixteenth Amendment went out for ratification. 4 years later it was the law of the land just before Taft left office. His subsequent stint as chief justice of Scotus from 1924 on, where he heard Cook v. Tait as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, made that scam INTERNATIONAL in scope.
He was also a revenue collector BEFORE he went into public service. Rotten to the core. 300 pound Jabba the Hut glutton is what he was.
QUESTION 22:
🙂
ANSWER 22:
He died 5 years after Cook v. Tait while serving as Chief Justice.
QUESTION 23:
He’s buried in Arlington. I’ve been to his grave.
ANSWER 23:
See Section 6.7.1
https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
The statues lining the SCOTUS building entrance hallway HE commissioned, his face is the only one of all the busts of justices with a SHIT EATING GRIN on it. We took a picture of it when I visited DC.
He died weeks after he got the Supreme Court building approved by Congress.
A CIVIC TEMPLE to worship the government as a SHRINE. Here’s the pagan man-made “god” they were idolatrously worshipping:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
SCOTUS met in office buildings before that.
Member of the skull and bones secret society at Yale. His secrets died with him. We have been piecing them together ever since.
QUESTION 24:
We know the income tax is a scheme to look like something other than what it is. They want us to believe that all citizens of the nation of the United States are taxed on ANY and ALL income from EVERYWHERE on the planet. But we know it’s much more limited.
So, how would you explain to a judge who the lawful and legitimate “citizen” of the “United States” contemplated in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(30)(A) is, and how would you say he/she is PROPERLY taxed under Title 26?
Keeping in mind, that a choice which is rescindable is not an alienation of rights, but an exercise thereof.
ANSWER 24:
- You can’t consent to commit treason. That’s not a right you can alienate.
- “world wide income” is always foreign, which means from a FOREIGN source so that it doesn’t interfere with state taxation, which is plenary. So AFTER you make the election, you earn FOREIGN income, and that election is limited to 26 U.S.C. 911, which is the ONLY place “foreign earned income” is even addressed. There is NO definition of “income” anywhere that is NOT foreign. If they tax domestic income, its a violation of due process, a presumption, and fails the reasonable notice requirement.
- 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1 doesn’t ADD domestic to that, because its still limited to 861-862 foreign income.
- Income tax PAYS for services that the constitution does not authorize in a constitutional state, It can’t therefore involve people standing on land protected by the constitution.
- Its ok in federal enclaves, and state statutes recognize this, because they aren’t protected by the constitution or the apportionment clauses. This is perfectly consistent with Sixteenth Amendment, which says “without apportionment'”. Apportionment isn’t required in federal enclaves, possessions, territories, or abroad. So the Sixteenth Amendment didn’t expand the scope of income tax at all.
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/ - If you, your honor, want to allege that 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1 ADDS to the “foreign income” category, you have to show me a definition of “income” that includes OTHER than foreign.
- If you don’t, since the 1040 and 1040NR EC section both tax gross receipts, its unconstitutional to enforce against people standing on land protected by the constitution. That’s why “State” never expressly includes states of the Union in the 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. 110(d).
QUESTION 25:
We gotta hash this out backwards and forwards. I’ll ask a lot of questions….and you should too.
They can tax NRA aliens without apportionment as well.
ANSWER 25:
Only if abroad. Not on land protected by the constitution. That’s a direct tax
QUESTION 26:
But who is the “citizen” of the “United StatesG”? Is it a government employee?
ANSWER 26:
It’s the government itself. Its an office in the treasury:
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
Of course the government can tax its own officers. The law of of nations recognizes citizens abroad as agents of their principle, the country they came from. If you don’t want to be such an agent, file as an NRA with no government source income.
The U.S. Inc corporation is a citizen of the place it was incorporated.
“A corporation is a citizen, resident, or inhabitant of the state or country by or under the laws of which it was created, and of that state or country only.”
[19 Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Corporations, §886 (2003)]
You’re just an officer of the corporation, which is called a “U.S. citizen”, no mater what your domicile is. Federal Rule of Civil procedure 17(b), 28 U.S.C. 1652, 26 C.F.R. 301.7701(b)-2(b)
Your “office or place of business” is D.C. 26 C.F.R. 301.7701(b)-2(b).
QUESTION 27:
But 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1(c) addresses political citizens. Corporations aren’t political citizens, so I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Plus, the citizen and resident of the United States are natural persons. Corporations are artificial persons specifically addressed beyond natural persons.
ANSWER 27:
Political citizens are the only ones who can serve in public offices in most places. And a franchise ADDS to the political citizen status. DUUUH.
Privilege. A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens [meaning POLITICAL citizens* who are “nationals of the United StatesP” or “U.S.* nationals”]. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1197]
Aliens can’t serve in government offices, unless they work in commiefornia (California)
🙂
QUESTION 28:
I can see how the “citizen” of the “United States” are gov employees and agents.
But if that’s the case, then under the new hypothesis, they cannot be taxed on domestic income—correct? Only foreign?
ANSWER 28:
They can’t serve in the office unless the officer has the same domicile as their principal. Otherwise its private business activity conducted extraterritorially WITHOUT sufficient notice and in violation of SCOTUS notice requirements and 4 U.S.C. 72. And it’s a commercial INVASION in violation of Constitution Article 4, Section 4.
AND it accomplishes all the following:
- Destroys the separation of powers.
- Corrupts the government.
- Deceives people by procuring their consent invisibly.
- Turns the government from a protector to a predator.
The following quote is pertinent:
“In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants.”
[Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d. 871, 879 (1947);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13809397457737233441]
If the feds can POACH state citizens and bribe them as voters and jurists with “benefits” NOT AUTHORIZED in the constitution to advance federal interests, they have effectively disestablished the state and poached the residents.
That’s WAR on the states. TREASON!
The determination of the Framers Convention and the ratifying conventions to preserve complete and unimpaired state self-government in all matters not committed to the general government is one of the plainest facts which emerge from the history of their deliberations. And adherence to that determination is incumbent equally upon the federal government and the states. State powers can neither be appropriated on the one hand nor abdicated on the other. As this court said in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 — “the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National Government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Every journey to a forbidden end begins with the first step; and the danger of such a step by the federal government in the direction of taking over the powers of the states is that the end of the journey may find the states so despoiled of their powers, or — what may amount to the same thing — so 296*296 relieved of the responsibilities which possession of the powers necessarily enjoins, as to reduce them to little more than geographical subdivisions of the national domain. It is safe to say that if, when the Constitution was under consideration, it had been thought that any such danger lurked behind its plain words, it would never have been ratified.
[Carter v. Carter Coal Company, 298 U.S. 238, 295-296 (1936);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6690667556596791816]
Its unconstitutional in most states to serve simultaneously as a federal officer and state officer. CRIMINAL financial conflict of interest. Same thing at the federal level: Foreign Agents Registration Act.
You’re promoting TREASON to suggest that people can just CONSENT or ELECT to that kind of corruption. Consent or an election to accomplish a criminal goal is unenforceable. All evidence of consent is fruit of a poisonous tree that is inadmissible in enforcing the consequences of consent.
If you weren’t so obsessed with money and saving it for yourself, you would spend more time on these relational issues way beyond the tax subject so you can REALLY love your neighbor by not naively promoting this kind of crime. This is done by naively saying anyone can consent to ANYTHING.
THEY CAN’T! And if they do, they are practicing idolatry, promoting crime, and injuring their neighbor for selfish reasons.
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Consent.pdf
Juries ALWAYS hang selfish people like that.
QUESTION 29:
There’s a long history and a mountain of case law “validating” this scheme as legitimate and constitutional. I am trying to keep both you and me out of BIG, BIG TROUBLE!
You have to assume what they are doing is legally and constitutionally legitimate. I think we both agree it is immoral. But it’s easy to talk tough now and be idealistic. You have got to be wise too and find a way to defeat this scheme by not being dogmatic. Because I do believe they have the legal latitude to do what they are doing. If you say they don’t, I believe that will be a brutal defeat.
You win by not being dogmatic, but by beating them at their own game. And you just seem very unwilling to do that. You want things to be a certain way, and it’s just not realistic or wise. I will ultimately get out of the way and watch what happens. But I will not follow you into the wood chipper of dogmatic stubbornness.
ANSWER 29:
Preventing or avoiding crime is dogmatic?
QUESTION 30:
No. But is it a crime? Are you certain? Would you bet your freedom on that position? Would you bet against 150 years of jurisprudence?
ANSWER 30:
- Those who want to take your money will always take the position that you can consent to anything, including crime. That leads to anarchy and destruction.
- Those who want justice instead of money will always take the position that there is a legal limit on what you can consent to and adhere to that limit out of respect for the “rule of law”.
The two approaches cannot be combined. Only one is possible. You just chose the path to anarchy and destruction.
QUESTION 31:
I just can’t seem to rein you in! You are really adamant about picking a fight with the Feds when I just don’t think it’s necessary.
I got a passport without a social without picking a fight. Your attachment all but ensures non-cooperation.
ANSWER 31:
You can’t follow or enforce the WHOLE law without picking a fight with SOMEONE. If avoiding fights is your main goal, then quit pretending to be a law abiding American and running from the parts of the law that introduce risk into your life.
Jesus proved this.
QUESTION 32:
You are not Jesus. He had clean hands. We do not.
ANSWER 32:
He said take up my cross and follow me. Taking up the cross inevitably means picking a fight with or offending someone, and especially the Pharisee types. See:
Who Were the Pharisees and Sadducees?, Form #05.047
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhoWerePharisees.pdf
All you seem to want to do is run from battle, at least in court.
QUESTION 33:
This is the biggest problem I see so far with the 26 U.S.C. 911-only hypothesis:
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax.
In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
The language, “wherever resident,“ —would appear to contradict the 26 U.S.C. 911-only hypothesis.
How would a “citizen” of the “United States” be considered abroad under 911 if he/she was a ✌️resident✌️of say, Texas, or Washington, D.C.?
If it didn’t say “wherever resident,” that would be very powerful. But it does say “wherever resident.” Thus, I can make my “worldwide income” claim against a U.S. person, and therefore also, a sec. 864(c)(3) claim against an NRA who receives income under 861. Furthermore, the statutes and the regs constitute your reasonable notice.
If I’m the DOJ, and I make this argument in my brief, how would you counter it?
ANSWER 33:
The ONLY people in the I.R.C. or regs who can be “residents” or have a “residence” are aliens. 26 C.F.R. 1.871-2. When DOJ went after an SEDM member for abusive tax shelters, they listed their “residence” in their announcement. The member called them on it by saying that was FRAUD.
Per the presence test in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b), American nationals are nonresidents EVERYWHERE. They can have a DOMICILE but never a “residence” in the I.R.C. “Residence” is always reserved for aliens and always connected to the presence test and federal preemption. The presence test, in fact, ESTABLSHES preemption as a foreign affairs function. They can’t mean DOMICILE because DOMICILE is never used in Subtitles A and C. It’s only used in Subtitle B in connection with Estate taxes.
Title 26: Internal Revenue
PART 1—INCOME TAXES
nonresident alien individuals
§ 1.871-2 Determining residence of alien individuals.(b) Residence defined.
An alien actually present in the United States who is not a mere transient or sojourner is a resident of the United States for purposes of the income tax. Whether he is a transient is determined by his intentions with regard to the length and nature of his stay. A mere floating intention, indefinite as to time, to return to another country is not sufficient to constitute him a transient. If he lives in the United States and has no definite intention as to his stay, he is a resident. One who comes to the United States for a definite purpose which in its nature may be promptly accomplished is a transient but, if his purpose is of such a nature that an extended stay may be necessary for its accomplishment, and to that end the alien makes his home temporarily in the United States, he becomes a resident, though it may be his intention at all times to return to his domicile abroad when the purpose for which he came has been consummated or abandoned. An alien whose stay in the United States is limited to a definite period by the immigration laws is not a resident of the United States within the meaning of this section, in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Show me an equivalent provision for NATIONALS. IT DOESN”T EXIST
So what they mean by “wherever resident” is “where they have the CIVIL STATUS of privileged alien resident in relation to the place they physically are, which is ALWAYS abroad”. And in that locality, they are taxed as a resident alien by the local government and need the privilege of a tax treaty to eliminate or reduce double taxation.
Moreover, there are two fairly instructive Revenue Rules spot on the topic of “wherever resident”. See Rev.Rul. 489 and Rev.Rul. 357 as follows:
No provision of the Internal Revenue Code or the regulations thereunder holds that a citizen of the United States is a resident of the United States for purposes of its tax. Several sections of the Code provide Federal income tax relief or benefits to citizens of the United States who are residents without the United States for some specified period. See sections 911, 934, and 981. These sections give recognition to the fact that not all the citizens of the United States are residents of the United States.
[Rev.Rul. 75-489, p. 511]
As regards additional support, see Rev. Rul. 75-357 at p. 5, as follows:
Sections 1.1-1(b) and 1.871-1 of the Income Tax Regulations provide that all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. See, however, section 911 of the Code. (Emphasis added.)
[Rev.Rul. 75-357, p. 5]
Being that Rev. Rul. 75-357 quotes 26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1(b) directly, and duly informs every reader to see, 26 U.S.C. § 911, I believe we should visit 26 U.S.C. § 911 and its regulations to locate the appropriate application of the wherever resident feature in that section of federal law. See 26 U.S.C. § 911(d)(1)(A) as follows:
(d) Definitions and special rules — For purposes of this section —
(1) Qualified individual — The term “qualified individual” means an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who is —
(A) a citizen of the United States and establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year.
[26 U.S.C. §911(d)(1)(A)]
Additionally, as we know, 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) states,
“All citizens of the United States, wherever resident, are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.”
[26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b)]
The regulations to section 911 make the distinction between where income is received as opposed to where services are performed. See:
26 C.F.R. §1.911-3 Determination of amount of foreign earned income to be excluded.
(a) Definition of foreign earned income.
For purposes of section 911 and the regulations thereunder, the term “foreign earned income” means earned income (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section) from sources within a foreign country (as defined in §1.911-2(h)) that is earned during a period for which the individual qualifies under §1.911-2(a) to make an election. Earned income is from sources within a foreign country if it is attributable to services performed by an individual in a foreign country or countries. The place of receipt of earned income is immaterial in determining whether earned income is attributable to services performed in a foreign country or countries.
SOURCE:
Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Family Guardian Fellowship, Section 11.7
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
QUESTION 34:
I have to hand it to you. That was one of the best rebuttals you have made to date. No dogma. No insults. No sass! Just facts and evidence! I thought what you presented was excellent!
ANSWER 34:
Q.E.D.
Thanks!
QUESTION 35:
Maybe not QED yet….but it does look likely.
I’ll have a few more follow-up Qs.