DEBATE: How do Nonresident Aliens get their reasonable notice and duty to perform?
EDITORIAL:
The following debate between us and a member deals with how nonresident aliens get their “reasonable notice” of obligation and the origin and extend of that obligation.
STATEMENT:
Statutes precede regs—we know this.
The starting point for the taxation of NRAs per statute is:
- 26 U.S.C. §871(a) for non-T or B
- 26 U.S.C. §871(b) for ECI
In the regs it starts here:
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) = candidates
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) = reasonable notice
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) = acceptance & duty
Are we in agreement that is where and how it starts for NRAs?
RESPONSE:
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) only mention citizens and residents. Reasonable notice and candidate pool relating to OTHER than political citizens in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) has to come from somewhere else in the case of Nonresident Aliens (NRAs). NRAs are anyone OTHER than those mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b).
Reasonable notice for nras seems to come from 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7 and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-8 in the case of those OTHER than political citizens in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
26 C.F.R. §1.871-8(b) functions similarly to 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) in the case of NRAs, but unlike 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b), it doesn’t use the “liable to” language so it seems to ADD to 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b).
This is designed to take the ECI decision out of your hands:
“However, income, gain, or loss which is treated as effectively connected for the taxable year with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States by a nonresident alien individual will generally be treated as effectively connected for a subsequent taxable year if he is engaged in a trade or business in the United States during such subsequent year, even though such income, gain, or loss is not effectively connected with the conduct of the trade or business carried on in the United States during such subsequent year.”
[26 C.F.R. §1.871-8(c)]
THEIR RESPONSE:
26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) embraces certain NRAs who don’t make the U.S. person election.
You and I are both embraced by 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).
OUR RESPONSE:
Yes, but it doesn’t embrace the ENTIRE candidate pool. Only the political citizen subset
The rest of the pool is in 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7 and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-8
THEIR RESPONSE:
But you agree NRAs are indeed noticed in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(b) and accept and incur a duty at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a)?
OUR RESPONSE:
Yes. And that duty is repeated by mentioning 26 U.S.C. §871/877 in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) like it is in (b)
THEIR RESPONSE:
100%
OUR RESPONSE:
But those in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) nowhere have an express liability. So Subtitle A is indeed NOTHING but a franchise and not a true 16th amendment tax
THEIR RESPONSE:
It’s in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a).
OUR RESPONSE:
What is?
THIER RESPONSE:
The acceptance and duty.
OUR RESPONSE:
Yes, for 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 26 U.S.C. §877(b) nras, but NOT for 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) nras
THEIR RESPONSE:
Yes, yes. But none needed there since it doesn’t involve the franchise. I would say…..26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) are just the sourced payments….no franchise involved.
OUR RESPONSE:
You mean from uncle? Or coming under 16A?
THEIR RESPONSE:
United StatesG sourced while not in a trade or business.
The first word in 16A is “Congress.” So, as it says in Alabama v. Texas, Congress has interest in ALL OF IT.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13082344449606716128
I think 16A covers franchise and/or jurisdictional source.
OUR RESPONSE:
Are you then implying that 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) are 16A, and that its taxable on profit everywhere in the country even if uncle didn’t pay it?
Or only in the case of alien doing business in the country?
THEIR RESPONSE:
Not the country….only in United StatesG, but not Texas^G (for example).
The domestic taxing jurisdiction.
OUR RESPONSE:
Are you then suggesting that United StatesG in the case of 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) NRAs includes all those PAYERS who make a domestic election AS WELL as uncle? Or just uncle?
And if it includes PAYERS OTHER than Uncle, please provide authorities to back that up like we do here:
Congress can’t have an ENFORCEABLE interest in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) unless they first OWN the property involved by paying it. If not, they are stealing and impairing private contracts.
THEIR RESPONSE:
United StatesG wouldn’t be activated UNLESS Congress had an interest in it. It’s the so-called “public domain” or “public property layer” as you call it. So, if the payor is involved in a trade or business, and the NRA isn’t, but is just receiving the payment from the payor, then yes, Congress has an interest in the 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and 26 U.S.C. §877(a) payment.
If the source remains foreign (Texas^G or California^G, for example), then there is no United StatesG source, because it hasn’t been brought into the public domain by the PAYER.
OUR RESPONSE:
You have any proof of that? I’d like to update the above article with it to reflect that.
Until then, its an ipse dixit statement not usuable in court. Taking that approach without authorities to back it up may minimize risk for you, but it doesn’t toe the line where jurisdiction really and lawfully exists.
And what about the scenario where the PAYER claims and acts like a U.S. person but has no authority to do so and thereby destroys the separation of powers in doing so in violation of the constitution and 4 U.S.C. §72?
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, I would say that the contrary position requires proof. What part of what I have written doesn’t make sense?
If Congress doesn’t have a PI in the matter, then it is a State^G (state jurisdiction) matter. As soon as USPI is involved, pre-emption occurs, and State^G is no longer relevant and it becomes a United StatesG (domestic taxing jurisdiction) issue.
Is there something here you disagree with?
ANYBODY can be a “U.S. person”. It’s an elective franchise.
The “U.S. person” is in D.C.—always will be. It is 100% an elective office under the statutory scheme.
OUR RESPONSE:
- Making sense and being provable with actual authorities are two completely different things. One isn’t useable in court and the other is respectively.
- I disagree that Congress can “invade the states” in violation of Constitution Article 4, Section 4 and 4 U.S.C. §72 to pit IDIOTS who are making invisible elections against those who just want to be LEFT ALONE and remain completely private. That is certainly incompatible with their oath to protect private property and in effect amounts to a civil war against private property.
- 4 U.S.C. §72 implies that if the office is domiciled in DC, it has to be PHYSICALLY EXERCISED there as well, But in fact, it is NOT. And if its done purely by contract, then the party doing it can’t be a political citizen because it accomplishes a purpose OPPOSITE of the constitution to protect private property.
- It completely violates the separation of powers to destroy the separation between public and private by doing the above:
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
- I would say my assertion here is self-evident and no judge would disagree.
- Congress can do ANYTHING with their own PI. See Alabama v. Texas I shared with you a few days ago. You loved it because it proved you right.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13082344449606716128 - Implies or states unequivocally? Nuff said.
- No it doesn’t.
OUR RESPONSE:
3. Unclear what you mean.
4. Government’ MAIN job and the REASON for their existence according to the Declaration is to protect private property. To turn that purpose into EXPANDING the public domain at the expense of the private domain by deceiving people into making elections that expand the public domain makes them an ANTI-GOVERNMENT that works a purpose OPPOSITE of their creation:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/DeFactoGov.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
Resident agent = exercises duties and authorities of the principal, which is seated in D.C.
OUR RESPONSE:
U.S. person is technically NOT a “resident agent” but a NONRESIDENT agent. No state I’ve found implements NONRESIDENT agents in their civil law. They need a PHYSICAL OFFICE in the state.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Resident in the jurisdiction where residing….
OUR RESPONSE:
Don’t know what you mean
THEIR RESPONSE:
You reside in Nevada.
OUR RESPONSE:
Which Nevada?: The corporation or the political geography?
THEIR RESPONSE:
The geography.
OUR RESPONSE:
I am ON THE LAND but not IN “the State” as a corporation
THEIR RESPONSE:
Agree
OUR RESPONSE:
The OFFICER and the OFFICE are not synonymous. The OFFICE has a domicile in DC but the OFFICER does not as a state domiciled political citizen. The OFFICER must physically execute the office in the geographical DC per 4 U.S.C. §72.
4 U.S. Code § 72 – Public offices; at seat of Government
All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.
If not, we have a separation of powers issue. AND we are violating the constitution or laws of most states because people serving as U.S. person officers while working on duty for the state have a conflict of interest and violate the dual-office prohibition in many state constitutions and state laws. Those prohibitions are summarized in:
https://sedm.org/Litigation/09-Reference/SEDMJurisdictionsDatabase.pdf
The dual office prohibition operates INDEPENDENT of geography.
United StatesG is geographical only to the extent that it deals with TANGIBLE property that is similarly PHYSICAL like geographies. That seems clear from reading the Union Refrigerator case. Intangible property can’t be part of United StatesG, such as privileges attached to fictional NON-PHYSICAL offices. And the tangible property must be located in the SAME place that the OFFICE is physically exercised. That seems to be the whole purpose of 4 U.S.C. §72.
And congress STILL doesn’t have a property interest even if the PAYOR is a U.S. person unless:
- There is profit under 16A and 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1) and BOTH parties consent to a taxable civil status OR
- Congress reserved a property interest before payment, such as Social Security in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(3), which is REALLY ECI under 26 U.S.C. §864(c).
THEIR RESPONSE:
See the following:
There is an exception in 4 U.S.C. 72. “…except as otherwise expressly provided by law.”
We have to presume that is authorized somewhere in the Statutes at Large. But, we do have to find it and not just presume.
OUR RESPONSE:
The fact that its called INTERNAL revenue service implies its INTERNAL to the corporation, which is NONGEOGRAPHICAL. Good luck with that.
I’ve been searching for that kind of info for years. The party with the burden of proof is uncle. Its not my job to prove the NEGATIVE. Thats an insurmountable burden or proof.
Here’s an example:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/BriefRegardingSecretary-4usc72.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
Courts presume legality in a statute.
OUR RESPONSE:
As long as the statute limits itself to the government, its officers with a CIVIL STATUS created and owned by Congress, and to federal property. But that’s not the case with an NRA.
Otherwise, the presumption would be a violation of due process and impair constitutional property rights. Presumptions aren’t allowed to do that unless there is a predicate civil status that involves federal property and preemption.
Its presumptuous to say the IRS is an agent of the U.S. government. No statute or regulation explicitly created it. The only control the government has over it is the appointment of the commissioner by the President and the supervision of the Secretary.
Irs is NEVER even listed in Title 31. There is NO PROOF of that:
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/OrigAuthIRS.pdf
IRS has no authority to operate OUTSIDE of internal revenue districts per 26 U.S.C. 7608, and the ONLY remaining district is DC.
PROVE that its an agent of the national government. I’ve studied this for years and I can’t find it.
THEIR RESPONSE:
See USA v. Lindsey Springer, Oscar Amos Stilley, Case No. 09-CR-043-SPF, Motion to dismiss filed on July 20, 2010. It raises some of these issues.
OUR RESPONSE:
Thanks. What was the outcome?
Springer was CLEARLY wrong, because he petitioned as a U.S. person by denying a residence. nationals who are NRAs can’t even HAVE a “residence”. He said he had no “residence” in a district, but only ALIENS can even have such a residence under 7701(b) and 26 C.F.R. 1.871-2
THEIR RESPONSE:
Here’s the exception to 4 U.S.C. 72. See 26 U.S.C. 7621.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7621
EXPLICITLY provided by law.
OUR RESPONSE:
That’s NOT an exception. As I said before there ARE currently no districts OTHER than DC.
That’s covered in Form #05.005 I linked to earlier
THEIR RESPONSE:
You’re saying the IRS doesn’t operate in the states? Of course they do.
What makes you think there is only one revenue district in DC?
OUR RESPONSE:
That’s covered in Form #05.005. What the law actually explicitly allows, and what they actually DO are often two very different things.
I’ve been searching for decades for evidence of a district in the states. They were all abolished as part of the IRS Restructuring and reform act of 1998. The only one they didn’t abolish was DC
They ARBITRARILY replaced “districts” with areas after 1998, and there is NO statutory authority for AREAS, so they are BOGUS. The only thing left are AREA offices and not DISTRICT offices. All the district directors were FIRED after IRS RRA 1998. I think that the fact that they haven’t maintained internal revenue districts in states of the Union is proof that United States^G is only a virtual and not a real PHYSICAL place, and which is just a filtration point for candidates making elections.
So once again, they can ONLY operate in DC and people PHYSICALLY exercising the office in DC.
No statute even authorizes the EXISTENCE of the IRS or its predecessor, the BIR. They aren’t listed in Title 31 so they aren’t in the treasury either. They work for the PRIVATE federal reserve to service the debt.
They can’t be an agency without establishment by statute. So the Commissioner created them out of thin air without lawful authority delegated by Congress.
See:
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Research/TreasOrgHist/TreasOrgHist.htm
THEIR RESONSE:
That’s a suicide position, dude!
Why do you like jeopardizing everything on clearly bogus positions that don’t matter anyway?
It’s like you just want to be contrary to be contrary. I don’t get it.
OUR RESPONSE:
Its a suicide position to operate outside the district without EXPRESS proof of authority, with no internal revenue districts, with illegal areas, and without lawful authority in Title 31 to even exist!
Are you now claiming that LAWLESS anarchist approach is defensible without any evidence on mere presumption? Do you expect me to concur that such anarchy is justifiable?
Show me the proof that:
- Districts still exist.
- Districts include every place currently targeted for enforcement.
- Areas lawfully exist.
- The IRS has lawful authority by statute to exist.
- The president or even the secretary established districts in the states.
- The constitution EXPRESSLY authorizes congress to set up ANY DAMN service in the states they want and enforce payment for it by essentially compelling people into a quasi-contract with them even if they don’t want the service and aren’t even allowed to quit it, as in the case of Socialist Security. It’s not in Article 1 Section 8 and it’s currently BANKRUPTING the national government.
No such thing, anarchist dude. We can’t be a society of laws as SCOTUS held in Marbury as long as you can’t prove any of the above. Opposing this may be an unpopular position, but that doesn’t make it inaccurate, incorrect, or lawless.
As long as you advocate such lawlessness, we can never agree in this area. Litigation is not a popularity context. It’s a law and evidence contest. You only seem to care about what LOOKS good, but not what IS genuinely good and lawful in this case. King Saul in the Bible was a man pleaser too, and look where it got him.
Seems you like to turn everything into a popularity and eliminate all risk contest. Full liberty is not possible with that approach.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Benjamin Franklin
This is a CRITICAL issue. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence said that the reason for separating from Britain at the time was that the king was invading the states with “swams of officers” to “eat out our substance” (property). The present “king” in effect is Deputizing everyone by fooling them into BECOMING his officers as “U.S. persons”. We have RECREATED that “king” by insisting on our own “title of disability” as “U.S. person” by being DECEIVED into doing so.
Here we are not only doing that AGAIN, but you CHAMPIONING it because it benefits you financially and minimizes your risk! That’s just as horrible as what Saul did. With that position, you’re leading an invasion in violation of Article 4, Section 4 to:
- Protect and sanction conversion of ALL property into public property,
- Eliminate private property.
- Make a profitable business out of doing the OPPOSITE of what government is created to do, and
- Doing LAWLESSLY so in the name of presumption and personal self interest.
If you call objecting to the above “being contrary just to be contrary”, we are on completely different planets, my friend. If you’re not willing to take a bullet for Jesus in this case, I question whether you really believe in him and whether he is just a liability insurance salesman for the wrath of hell on not really a sovereign Lord.
If you’re not willing to take a bullet for Jesus in this case in defense of the innocent and ignorant OUTSIDE of DC, I question whether you really believe in Him and whether he is just a liability insurance salesman for the wrath of hell on not really a sovereign Lord. Luke 18:22 was Jesus’ message for people who take that position by seeking money and popularity but neglecting the “weightier matters of the law”. James 4:4 calls them “friends of the world”.
God or mammon. Take your pick.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Springer articulates his argument well. I wonder how the court responded. I don’t think that docket (2010) would still be in PACER.
OUR RESPONSE:
This is such a sensitive third rail issue the government’s response was probably censored or unpublished because of that.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Remember….they’re not operating in the States^G. They’re operating in the United States^G.
Different jurisdiction.
OUR RESPONSE:
The United States^G is really just the virtual land of oz to contain TANGIBLE and INTANGIBLE property DONATED to Uncle by election. But no tangible physical property exists there except by election. Its just a way of filtering candidates. Here’s an attempt to address that I just completed:
https://ftsig.org/definitions-tangibles/
THEIR RESPONSE:
Go back and read 26 U.S.C. 7621(b) more closely.
They have united all districts into one—United States^G.
OUR RESPONSE:
The terms there never expressly include constitutional states. So its just the virtual land of Oz for election candidate filtration.
We already know based on 44 USC 1501(a)(1), 5 U.S.C. 553(a )(2), etc that INTERNAL means INSIDE the government. See:
Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf
And it doesn’t really matter because there are not districts in the states. IRS RRA 98 abolished them all. 26 U.S.C. 7608 limits IRS enforcement to these districts and it wasn’t abolished.
So once again, IRS, like the Federal Reserve, is a ROGUE agency operating entirely outside the law and constitutional constraints by fiat and presumption.
THEIR RESPONSE:
There cannot be districts in the states—only the United States^G. Frankly, that’s probably why they abandoned them. They have authority throughout the United States^G. And that is today’s reality.
Then I wouldn’t even file. Why entertain a rogue agency?!
OUR RESPONSE:
You file because idiot third parties permit them to administratively enforce, and you can’t afford to litigate. So you bribe them with withholding and ask for your stolen money back so they will leave you alone ADMINISTRATIVELY. That’s how mafias work: You have to BRIBE them with “donated” property or services to get them to leave you alone and not break your knee caps or set fire to your storefront.