DEBATE: Items identified as FDAP on IRS website include private property
EDITORIAL:
This debate surrounds what is “included” in FDAP items listed under 26 U.S.C. 871(a)(1). It does so in the context of a recent PGA golf prize winner who is an alien in relation to United States* and whether his golf winnings would be considered FDAP if he filed as a nonresident alien.
THEIR STATEMENT:
Look at this! Ironically, I just saw an article addressing this today….
This is covered on the IRS Website under FDAP:
Fixed, determinable, annual, or periodical (FDAP) income, IRS
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/fixed-determinable-annual-or-periodical-fdap-income
It specifically addresses golf winnings of alien individuals.
So these foreign golfers are playing golf and winning multi-million-dollar purses and paying tax on the winnings under I.R.C. 871(a)(1)(A). See…that’s the problem. I believe that a person can do everything right, and if the payer makes a domestic election in time-past, then the payee is in receipt of U.S. sourced income under that catch-all laundry list of I.R.C. 871(a)(1)(A).
So, legal counsel domesticated this wealthy, private organization and engaged it into a United States trade or business—the “U.S. person” office.
OUR RESPONSE:
Compliance=Obedient Babylon WHORE
Are You “Playing the Harlot?”, SEDM
https://sedm.org/are-you-playing-the-harlot/
THEIR RESPONSE:
Would you concede that Rory’s $4.2MM prize money is “compensation” or FDAP under I.R.C. 871(a)(1)(A)?
He’s not engaged in a “trade or business,” but Augusta National, Inc. is a “U.S. person.” So he falls under I.R.C. 871(a).
OUR RESPONSE:
Never.
- There is no liability statute so everyone is a volunteer.
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf - The “taxpayer” office is what makes it PUBLIC property that can be taxed on GROSS receipts.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NontaxpayerBOR.pdf - If “taxpayer” were private, then it would be a direct unapportioned tax on private property.
THEIR RESPONSE:
But Augusta elected to be public.
They can make voluntary elections, no?
OUR RESPONSE:
That doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY mean that everyone they do BUSINESS with is a public officer. Congress cannot compel you to contract or associate.
THEIR RESPONSE:
No it doesn’t. But Rory is now in possession of U.S. sourced profit that Congress can tax by virtue of Augusta’s election.
OUR RESPONSE:
Rory didn’t go there as an agent of someone else. He participated as a HUMAN being protected by the bill of rights. He has to convert the property or his status to public before he can owe a tax.
Where did Congress give REASONABLE notice of a RESERVED public property interest in the winnings like they did with Social Security in I.R.C. 871(a)(3)? No notice, violation of due process.
THEIR RESPONSE:
No. Augusta did that, and he volunteered to play in a tournament sponsored and payed out by a “U.S. person.”
OUR RESPONSE:
So what.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Reasonable notice is given in the IRC.
OUR RESPONSE:
Its not positive law, so its not evidence or “notice” of anything.
It’s RULES for using public property under Constitution Article 4:3:2. But there is no real “benefit” (consideration) in Title 26 so the contract or quasi contract is VOID. Giving you back your OWN money is not CONSIDERATION.
It can’t be a valid contract or quasi contract WITHOUT some real consideration and respect for your right to NOT accept the consideration
THEIR RESPONSE:
But in the case of Rory, it’s not his own money, but a lucrative purse from Augusta, the voluntary “U.S. person”—a privileged profit payment.
I’m arguing this as I believe the IRS/DOJ would or at least should (if they were being transparent).
They will never try to reason with you. This, because I believe, they don’t even understand it.
OUR RESPONSE:
They don’t have to reason with me. All they have to do is honor their oath to protect private property. If I don’t adopt a status under their contract and make myself or my property PUBLIC, then it remains private and I’m the merchant making the rules for THEM.
Job 1 for the tax collector is to protect PRIVATE property. That’s the purpose of their oath. That protection starts by LEAVING it alone and not taxing or regulating it UNLESS and UNTIL I elect to make it public.
I make it public by VOLUNTARILY joining the collective as a CIVIL citizen or CIVIL resident. That collective called “the State” is a Private Membership Association. The club rules are the civil law.
Any other approach is THEFT and IDENTITY THEFT
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, you and I don’t run Augusta National, Inc.—others do. And they elected to make it “public” through their domestication election.
When one intends the facts to which the law attaches consequences, he must abide the consequences whether intended or not.
Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939)
OUR RESPONSE:
Here’s proof that joining the PMA “State” is what creates the obligations:
“The obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50.”
[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]
THEIR RESPONSE:
This discusses state taxation—not federal.
OUR RESPONSE:
The fact that THEY are public doesn’t mean YOU have to be, nor that the WINNINGS are after you receive them.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, I dispute that. But we’ll see.
OUR RESPONSE:
By what authority precisely did the CONVERSION from PRIVATE to PUBLIC or vice versa happen. There are only FIVE rules according to SCOTUS in Budd v. People of NY, 143 U.S. 517? See:
Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.045, p. 48
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
That prize money is a USPI through Augusta’s election. Once Rory gets his hands on it, it’s a USPI as well because of the profit nature and the source.
Sixteenth Amendment 👍
OUR RESPONSE:
He delivered labor in participation.
https://ftsig.org/category/foreign-remedies/government/involuntary-taxation-of-your-own-labor/
Human labor is not an article of commerce but services for someone else sold for profit are taxable and public if the artificial entity OWNER of the labor is domestic.
He was not domestic unless he made a U.S. person election ALSO.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, the PGA is domestic too. And he is a member of that domestic association playing in a tournament sponsored and payed by a domestic entity—Augusta National, Inc.
OUR RESPONSE:
If he files as a NRA nontaxpayer, how did he or his property become public?
THEIR RESPONSE:
Besides, 871 doesn’t address US persons, but NRAs with USPI.
It’s public because it came from a public source—Augusta National.
OUR RESPONSE:
After it changes owner, the nature as public or private changes to that of the new owner. Only by the PAYOR reserving a property interest can any of the consideration paid REMAIN public AFTER the new owner takes possession.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, I don’t agree with that. But that’s ok.
OUR RESPONSE:
Proof that’s wrong?
This is really basic stuff.
THEIR RESPONSE:
The IRC appears to do just that. That’s how I read it.
OUR RESPONSE:
I.R.C. 871(a)(3) reserves a property interest and thus makes the entire SS amount taxable as GROSS RECEIPTS.
I.R.C. 871(a)(1) doesn’t reserve a property interest so its on profit from transactions with U.S. inc.
But there is no profit in human labor unless it is done on behalf of the EMPLOYER or PRINCIPAL for hire.
Who’s the EMPLOYER or PRINCIPAL in rendering the services of Rory IF he files as an NRA NONTAXPAYER with no civil status and no USPI property elections?
Great discussion, and great example to apply it to, BTW. Thx
THEIR RESPONSE:
So, you’re saying that if the PGA won a fraction of the purse FROM Rory’s labor, skill, expertise, etc., then THAT would be a profit for PGA, but it would not be a “profit” on the pay by the person who provided said labor, skill and expertise (Rory in this case)?
Did I get that correct?
OUR RESPONSE:
Yes. Every transaction has TWO sides. Don’t equivocate/confuse the two sides.
That’s why the Property View of Income Taxation presentation had to show BOTH sides and exactly how they interact using the laws of property.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
Well, if you’re correct, what’s being equivocated is not the payor and the payee, but the laborer and his sponsor (the middle man), who both receive pay from the payor. The sponsor or boss gets the pay DIRECTLY, and then the boss pays the laborer for his labor, skill, and expertise, which helped the boss make the profit. He gets the pay INDIRECTLY.
OUR REPONSE:
You see how INTIMATELY the laws of agency and property fit into all this and why it’s ESSENTIAL to discuss the idea of offices and PUBLIC/PRIVATE conversion to explain it all?
http://books.google.com/books?id=Jj0QAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover
It may be WAY over the head of the people you interface with, but its essential.
THEIR RESPONSE:
So, you contend a paycheck as a Lieutenant Colonel in the USAF is not taxable IF they don’t sign a W-4?
OUR RESPONSE:
I contend that whatever I procure by an equal exchange of labor for its value in money has no profit, and that taxing it is slavery if the “taxpayer” is a human and not an office.
This is VERY plain in the 8275 attached to the 1040-NR and even quoted SCOTUS on the subject. Did you read it?
1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
In other words words, you think I.R.C. 3402 is unconstitutional?
OUR RESPONSE:
I contend that a tax on PRIVATE human property without the consent of the owner in some form is THEFT. Human labor is property. Consent converts the property or portion thereof from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.