FAQ: You state that American Nationals residing within the protections of the Constitution have to make an election before they can have taxable income under I.R.C. 871. What if they receive “income” from those who are privileged?
QUESTION:
You state in the following that American Nationals residing within the protections of the Constitution have to make an election before they can have taxable income under I.R.C. 871:
Catalog of Elections and Entity Types in the Internal Revenue Code
Section 7: Entering anything but PROFIT as “income” or “effectively connected” income on a tax return
https://ftsig.org/catalog-of-elections-in-the-internal-revenue-code/#7._Entering
I think there’s one more area I’m not completely on board with. That’s not to say that I won’t. Rather, I need to see if there is case law that states this.
I believe that if a corporation (such as GM) makes a domestic election for tax purposes (domestic EIN and 1120 filing), then it constitutes U.S. source income—even if I don’t file a W-4.
Your assertion that the implications of GM’s quasi-contract does not extend to “downstream” payees is logical to me. But that’s something I need to establish with case law to feel comfortable taking that position.
Here is my concern. I don’t necessarily believe AI. But its answer is consistent with my concerns. Look at this AI exchange:
Question 1:
We know that according to the SCOTUS, federal income taxes are quasi-contractual in nature. That said, if an otherwise foreign corporation under federal law (Delaware corporation) makes a domestic election for the purposes of federal income taxes status, would the implications of that domestic election extend to so-called “downstream” payees who themselves choose NOT to enter into a quasi-contract for federal income taxes status purposes? That is, could the payee regard the corporation as a Delaware corporation rather than a United States corporation for the purposes of categorizing their pay?
Answer 1:
The implications of a domestic election for federal income tax status by a foreign corporation (like a Delaware corporation) on downstream payees who haven’t entered into a quasi-contract for federal income tax status purposes are nuanced.
Understanding Quasi-Contractual Nature
Federal income taxes are considered quasi-contractual in nature, as established by the Supreme Court in Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. (1935). This means that tax liabilities arise from statutory obligations rather than a voluntary agreement between parties ¹.
Domestic Election by Foreign Corporation
When a foreign corporation makes a domestic election for federal income tax purposes, it essentially chooses to be treated as a domestic corporation for tax purposes. However, this election might not directly impact the tax status of downstream payees who haven’t made a similar election.
Impact on Downstream Payees
Downstream payees who haven’t entered into a quasi-contract for federal income taxes status purposes might still be subject to withholding taxes or other tax implications when receiving payments from the corporation. The payee’s tax obligations would depend on their individual tax status and the type of income received.
Categorizing Payments
In categorizing payments, the payee might consider the corporation’s status under federal law. However, the corporation’s domestic election for tax purposes could affect the withholding obligations of the corporation, potentially impacting the payee’s tax liability.
Conclusion
The domestic election by a foreign corporation for federal income tax purposes could have implications for downstream payees, particularly regarding withholding obligations and tax liabilities. Nevertheless, the payee’s specific tax status and the type of income received would ultimately determine their tax obligations.
Question 2:
That didn’t address my question. Let me reword it. Assuming the payee didn’t enter into a voluntary withholding agreement under 26 U.S.C. § 3402(p)(3) with the Delaware corporation who itself possessed a domestic character by its organizers, could the payee, who is a foreign person under the IRC treat the payment as coming from the jurisdiction of Delaware rather than the jurisdiction of the United States? Put another way, is the payee obliged to regard the payment from the domestic corporation as a U.S. sourced payment if the payee wishes to avoid the federal income tax quasi-contract?
Answer 2:
To answer your reworded question:
Payee’s Perspective
If the payee is a foreign person under the IRC and hasn’t entered into a voluntary withholding agreement with the Delaware corporation, they might consider the payment’s source to determine their tax obligations.
Sourcing of Payment
The payment’s source would typically be determined based on the character of the payor (the Delaware corporation). Since the corporation has a domestic character for federal income tax purposes, the payment would likely be considered a U.S.-sourced payment.
Payee’s Obligation
In this scenario, the payee might be obliged to regard the payment as a U.S.-sourced payment, potentially subject to federal income tax withholding or other tax implications.
Avoiding Federal Income Tax Quasi-Contract
If the payee wishes to avoid the federal income tax quasi-contract, they might need to consider the payment’s source as U.S.-based, given the corporation’s domestic status.
Conclusion
Given the Delaware corporation’s domestic character, it’s likely that the payee would need to treat the payment as U.S.-sourced, potentially subject to federal income tax implications.
This is the problem I see. U.S. sourced = privileged source.
Private sector? No.
Public/U.S. sector? Yes.
The next question then: Does it constitute profit?
If even exchange? No.
If profit? Yes.
So, we have to categorize “profit.” And I can also see how all things listed in 871(a)(1) apply to an alien. But we also see from 873(b)(3) that a U.S. national (you and I) can take deductions.
So how would a U.S. national owe on something from 871(a)(1)? Simply by characterizing it as such (Pbly by error)?
I do believe that interest and dividends from a domestic source are always taxed.
I just don’t think you can claim that no tax is EVER owed.
U.S. bond interest or gain has got to be taxed. Interest too.
Look at this though…..
Question 3:
Help me understand what SCOTUS meant by quasi-contract. You mentioned participation in the quasi-contract was via statutory construction rather than both parties voluntarily entering into an agreement. If a lower-tiered party wished to avoid the voluntary nature of the quasi-contract, must the implications of the quasi-contractual obligations of an upper-tiered party extend to the lower-tiered party if the lower-tiered party avoids ALL aspects of the quasi-contract when offered by the upper-tiered party? Again, the lower-tiered party avoids all aspects of the quasi-contract. However, the upper-tiered party entered into a quasi-contract with an upper-tiered party above it. Does such an arrangement encumber or obligate the lowest-tiered party if they avoid the quasi-contract?
Answer 3:
Let’s break down the concept of quasi-contract in the context of taxation and its implications for lower-tiered parties.
Quasi-Contract in Taxation
When SCOTUS refers to federal income taxes as quasi-contractual, it means that tax obligations arise from statutory construction rather than a voluntary agreement between parties. This doesn’t imply a traditional contract between the taxpayer and the government.
Voluntary Nature
In this context, participation in the quasi-contract isn’t entirely voluntary for parties who earn income subject to taxation. However, certain elections or agreements can be made voluntarily.
Lower-Tiered Party Avoiding Quasi-Contract
If a lower-tiered party avoids all aspects of the quasi-contract offered by an upper-tiered party, it’s likely that the lower-tiered party wouldn’t be bound by the quasi-contractual obligations.
Implications of Upper-Tiered Party’s Quasi-Contract
If the upper-tiered party has entered into a quasi-contract with an upper-tiered party above it, this arrangement might not directly impact the lower-tiered party who has avoided the quasi-contract.
Conclusion
In general, if the lower-tiered party successfully avoids all aspects of the quasi-contract, it’s likely that they wouldn’t be encumbered or obligated by the quasi-contractual arrangements of upper-tiered parties.
Question 4:
Would that extend to the characterization of pay too? That is, if the middle-tired party (party 2) classified itself as domestic with the highest-tiered party (party 1), is it 100% certain that the payments to the lowest-tiered party (party 3) would also be characterized as domestic even though they would be foreign but for the quasi-contract between parties 1 and 2?
Answer 4:
The characterization of payments to the lowest-tiered party (Party 3) would depend on the specific circumstances and tax laws applicable.
Characterization of Payments
If Party 2 classified itself as domestic with Party 1 due to a quasi-contract, it’s not necessarily certain that payments to Party 3 would be characterized as domestic.
Party 3’s Status
If Party 3 avoids all aspects of the quasi-contract and is otherwise foreign, they might argue that the payments they receive should be characterized based on their own status, rather than Party 2’s domestic classification.
Tax Laws and Regulations
The characterization of payments would ultimately depend on the applicable tax laws and regulations, including any relevant treaties or agreements.
Conclusion
While Party 2’s domestic classification might influence the characterization of payments, it’s not a guarantee that payments to Party 3 would be treated as domestic. The specific circumstances and tax laws would need to be considered.
Question 5:
How would I account for Party 2’s payment being characterized as domestic from the perspective of both Party 1 & 2, but being characterized as foreign from the perspective or Party 3 because Party 3 avoiding the provisions of the quasi-contract that would otherwise obligate it? Does that fall under contract law or equity?
Answer 5:
This situation involves a nuanced tax characterization issue, rather than traditional contract law or equity.
Different Perspectives
Party 1 and Party 2 might characterize the payment as domestic due to their quasi-contractual agreement. Meanwhile, Party 3, avoiding the quasi-contract’s provisions, might consider the payment foreign.
Tax Characterization
This discrepancy highlights the complexities of tax characterization, particularly when parties have different statuses or agreements.
Potential Outcomes
Possible outcomes include:
- Inconsistent treatment: Each party treats the payment differently for tax purposes.
- Tax implications: Party 3’s characterization might impact withholding obligations or tax liabilities.
Relevant Laws and Regulations
The specific tax laws, regulations, and agreements applicable to each party would determine the characterization and potential outcomes.
Conclusion
This situation requires careful analysis of tax laws and regulations to determine the implications of different characterizations by each party.
I think we need to dig into section 863 and the regulations thereunder. We may find a gold nugget on treatment of source.
ANSWER:
You MISSED the key point:
1. The ONLY origin of the ability to tax is OWNERSHIP over PUBLIC property. You can only regulate or control or write definitions that affect the ownership of your own property. Congress cannot write definitions that take away, control, or regulate OTHER people’s property or PRIVATE property. Their main job is to protect private by keeping it separate from PUBLIC.
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/effect-of-definitions-upon-ownership-of-property/
On a more basic level, if your neighbor said if you jump up and down on your front lawn, then I define that action as an act of consent to transfer ownership of your home to me and rent your house from me instead of the mortgage company from then on? Can they unilaterally do that without an EXISTING ownership interest in your house or even your consent? You would tell them to pack sand! That is exactly what Uncle would be doing to define the actions of someone who isn’t you as the origin an obligation that attaches to you or your property or your house. They can’t do it and you would fight the tooth and nail if they even TRIED to do it, wouldn’t you?
2. Volunteering ALWAYS involves ASKING for government property BEYOND the equal exchange of your property for money. That is the only way to characterize a government benefit or privilege. Otherwise, its just a procurement or sale between two equal parties. And the transfer of that property must be temporary with you in possession but not absolute ownership. Otherwise, they have no authority to regulate or tax AFTER you receive possession, because no strings were attached to receipt with reasonable notice given of those strings.
3. ONLY consent to receive the “benefit”, which they call a “privilege”, and your continued use and possession of the property can produce an obligation. That’s the inevitable implication of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2: Congress has to OWN it before they can write rules such as TAX STATUTES to control the use. Otherwise you would have to sign a contract.
4. Working to support yourself is not a privilege. its a right and an obligation of natural law in order to continue your own life and live responsibly.
5. A franchise or privilege is legally defined as an ADDITION to the above items. Those items are called “common right”.
6. You’re misplacing who YOUR consent is DIRECTED at. It has to be directed at ONLY the government, not its PRIVATE agents through a quasi-contract such as a domesticated corporation. And the result of the consent has to be GREATER than the value of the EQUAL consideration you bring to the quasi-contract. That is called PROFIT.
7. They can’t tax or regulate purely private property exchanged between two equal parties. Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
7.1. That would be an interference with the right to contract of both parties and a DIRECT tax if it taxed any part of the CAPITAL (PRIVATE PROPERTY) passed between the parties. Yet, NO provision of the I.R.C. actually RECOGNIZES a tax purely on PROFIT.
7.2. GROSS receipts in every scenario we have found is ALWAYS and ONLY the thing taxed. Thus, the income tax is not a Sixteenth Amendment tax, but a tax on VOLUNTARY PRIVILEGE you personally and individually consented to almost exclusively through your ACTIONS rather than expressly.
7.3. The conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC can occur by NO OTHER REASONABLE way because anything else would be THEFT and unconstitutional:
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
8. The above are the reasons why filing information returns relates to the “trade or business” of the FILER and not the recipient’s “trade or business” under IRC 6041. The FILER cannot unilaterally DONATE your private earnings to the government and thereby CONSENT to contract with the government on your behalf. You STILL have the make the “effectively connected” election YOURSELF after you receive the payment.
9. They can’t just TAKE property without consideration. That would be a Fifth Amendment unconstitutional taking. SOME consideration is required, and you MUST have the ability to REFUSE it. What exactly is the consideration (privilege) identified and why isn’t it listed in the list of privileges in 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2) if it really is consideration?
“A person is ordinarily not required to pay for benefits which were thrust upon him with no opportunity to refuse them. The fact that he is enriched is not enough, if he cannot avoid the enrichment.” Wade, Restitution for Benefits Conferred Without Request, 19 Vand. L. Rev. at 1198 (1966).
[Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, 26 N.C.App. 387, 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)]“Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law [including a CIVIL FRANCISE statute] introduced for his own benefit.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
10. If you are NEVER given an EXPLICIT right or opportunity to refuse the privilege or benefit in the conduct of a normal act of contracting or commerce, then it can’t be a privilege or franchise. USRPI in the case of FIRPTA at 26 U.S.C. 897 is the best example of that, as you well know. Any other conclusion would make the government a literal MAFIA:
“An OFFER you can’t refuse”
[The God Father]
11. None of the above would be relevant to those who are either NOT “nonresident aliens” protected by the Constitution, or who made a U.S. person election.
11.1. In those scenarios, the Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply and the GOVERNMENT is already the presumed OWNER of the commerce because it is privileged beyond the point of consent/election. For instance, those who elect “U.S. person” status beyond the point of that election are mere trustees over government property.
11.2. Everything that attaches to the SSN franchise mark attaches to the office, which in turn establishes that the property is GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC property rather than that of the human being CONSENSUALLY ANIMATING the “U.S. person” office as an otherwise PRIVATE officer.
11.3. Beyond the point of ANY election, even if the party was otherwise protected by the constitution, they SURRENDER the protections of the constitution and the Bill of Rights under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court, at least in connection with whatever property they connected to the “U.S. person” office with the SSN franchise mark. See:
Catalog of U.S. Supreme Court Doctrines, Litigation Tool #10.020, Sections 5.3 and 5.13
https://sedm.org/Litigation/10-PracticeGuides/SCDoctrines.pdf
12. Even IF GM as a state corporation with a domestication election WANTED to represent Uncle Sam to thus become a U.S. Source in relation to you, the fact that they are a quasi-contractor or even an AGENT doesn’t make them a PUBLIC OFFICER or REPRESENTATIVE of Uncle Sam.
12.1. That would violate 4 U.S.C. §72 and constitute the criminal offense of impersonating a public officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §912.
12.2. Congress must give EXPRESS consent to represent the U.S. government as a public officer, and the office itself must be domiciled and lawfully exercised ONLY in the District of Columbia and “not elsewhere”.
12.3. G.M. was never expressly given such permission to do so in a place not expressly authorized, such at its OWN public headquarters in Chicago Illinois. Only PUBLIC officers lawfully elected or appointed can handle public property or attach obligations to that property. Private quasi-contractors such as OTHER “taxpayers” unilaterally CAN’T. So that would be a no go.
Thus, the reporting and tax collection apparatus perfectly respects the lawful separation of private and public until YOU expressly consent and make an election ONLY at filing time. No one else can make that election unless you proffer a power of attorney. See:
Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf
Until you deal with the above issues directly, there is no method to resolve this issue. They are all third rail issues that will be impossible to find evidence on. The reason for the dearth of evidence should be obvious: Its the exit door. That is why we’ve had to spend 25 years on this subject searching (so far).
THEIR RESPONSE:
Ok. That makes sense. So you would agree then that actually working for and being paid by the government would constitute a U.S. source?
And, it seems that unless someone is with the government, they are not a “public officer.” Right?
OUR REPSONSE:
Only if it ADDS to the benefits that an ordinary contract of labor would provide under the common law. Being paid for labor in equal exchange for money doesn’t add to those benefits. If no subtitle C “employee” elections are made, there are no additional benefits.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Whether or not it is “profit” is a different issue. I’m just referring to the source.
I agree with your last statement.
OUR RESPONSE:
Even with payments from the Government, they STILL have to provide ADDITIONAL consideration beyond “common rights” of contracting and give me an opportunity to refuse.
“A person is ordinarily not required to pay for benefits which were thrust upon him with no opportunity to refuse them. The fact that he is enriched is not enough, if he cannot avoid the enrichment.” Wade, Restitution for Benefits Conferred Without Request, 19 Vand. L. Rev. at 1198 (1966).
[Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, 26 N.C.App. 387, 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)]“Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law [including a CIVIL FRANCISE statute] introduced for his own benefit.”
[Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
WHERE is the consideration beyond an ordinary contract? And they have to NOTICE me of the consideration and identify it as a privilege in either 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b)(2) or 26 U.S.C. 871(a). They did it with Social Security in 26 U.S.C. 873(a )(3) but not for anything ELSE. Thus, everything ELSE is “purposefully excluded” per the rules of statutory construction and interpretation.
An offer (notice) and opportunity to refuse is MANDATORY part of constitutional due process. See:
Requirement for Due Process of Law, Form #05.045** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/requirement-for-due-process-of-law-form-05-045/
A quasi-contract is like any other contract:
- Offer.
- Acceptance.
- Mutual assent (notice).
- MUTUAL and EQUAL consideration.
The only thing unique about a quasi-contract is that acceptance happens by ACTION rather than WORDS. Thus:
INVISIBLE CONsent, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/invisible-consent/
THEIR RESPONSE:
What say you regarding “interest and dividends from domestic corporations” as provided for in T.D. 2313?
Dividends stem from profits, and are therefore distributions of profit. And interest is a payment above and beyond the capital invested.
OUR RESPONSE:
The case was only about the WITHHOLDING, not about the tax return. He could have gotten it back like we are talking about now by filing as a nonresident alien and making no elections, just like Cook could have if they Filed as an NRA.
In effect, Brushaber was targeted for backup withholding. He wasn’t an alien so he didn’t come under 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 “foreign person” withholding. That’s what backup withholding is called today. That’s the ONLY subject of the Brushaber case.
We already know that backup withholding in 26 U.S.C. 3406 only applies to domestic persons with a DUTY to provide an SSN. See:
https://ftsig.org/lawfully-avoiding-backup-withholding/
Show me ONE instance where “gross income” is only PROFIT in the IRC. NO SUCH THING! The Sixteenth Amendment relates to PRIVATE property protected by the constitution, not PUBLIC property. A franchise removes the protection of the constitution.
THEIR RESPONSE:
What? Withholding only applies to domestic persons?
OUR RESPONSE:
Aliens are privileged and become DOMESTIC “resident aliens” by mere physical presence. When they are “nonresident aliens” they are also treated as “resident” under the Minimum Contacts Doctrine by doing business from a foreign country in our country as aliens.
In both scenarios, they are DOMESTIC, WHETHER THEY WANT TO BE OR NOT. And by “domestic”, I mean WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of United StatesSMJ as a GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC PROPERTY interest. The aliens don’t need to make an EXPRESS election. Their BEAVIOR IS the election. The result is a domestic CIVIL status domiciled in DC that is a domestic person.
There are two types of nras: Aliens and nationals. I already covered the aliens above.
“Nonresident alien” nationals are not privileged unless they engage in activities EXPESSLY listed in 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b)(2) and do so through an express, written election such as effectively connecting or by FIRPTA with a FIRPTA Affidavit.
THEIR RESPONSE:
So you would agree then that a U.S. national NRA who IS engaged in any privileged activity listed under 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b)(2) could be subject to withholding?
OUR RESPONSE:
Maybe for backup withholding because they have a duty to supply an ssn and backup witholding requires that duty. If you can’t avoid the SSN requirement, you can’t avoid backup withholding in 26 U.S.C. 3406. All U.S. persons have that duty. NRAs don’t always have it.
But not for foreign person withholding by being a “person”. In 26 C.F.R. 1.144-1, the withholding agent would have a HELL of a time proving that by only reading 1.1441-1. They aren’t in there. That was what I proved in my W-8SUB Faqs, questions 1 and 2. they can NEVER prove a negative, so they would look like they are stealing.
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf
THEIR RESPONSE:
But 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 discusses withholding…not just backup withholding, which is a subset of basic withholding.
But this proves that 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 doesn’t only apply to aliens.
OUR RESPONSE:
We already went through this and you didn’t disprove this, so you agree:
The conclusion of the above was that:
- 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 “foreign person” withholding applies to those who are both “foreign” and “persons”.
- By default, the only “persons” are aliens in 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c)(3).
- U.S. nationals can ADD themselves to the “person” list through an election ONLY.
THEIR RESPONSE:
No. I haven’t disproved it yet. And I also haven’t proved it YET.
My default now is that it applies to aliens and non-aliens alike.
OUR RESPONSE:
26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1 can’t apply to nationals unless they elect. Minimum contacts doctrine makes them nonresidents and “non-individuals” UNTIL they elect.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Ok. Then you just proved my point.
As long as they elect, then it can apply.
Thus, it can apply to US nationals.
OUR RESPONSE:
You haven’t proved anything. This has been our position for the last 25 years! You just weren’t paying attention, dude!
Of course it can. Anything can happen to IDIOTS who consent or elect. Bend over and get your ky jelly out and SHUT UP! And God has a CURSE that goes with that election:
“The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower [of CIVIL privileges or public property] is servant to the lender.”
[Prov. 22:7, Bible, NKJV]
Curses of Disobedience [to God’s Laws]
“The alien [Washington, D.C. is legislatively “alien” in relation to states of the Union] who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower [malicious destruction of EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL TREATMENT by abusing FRANCHISES]. He shall lend to you [Federal Reserve counterfeiting franchise], but you shall not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail.
“Moreover all these curses shall come upon you and pursue and overtake you, until you are destroyed, because you did not obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you. And they shall be upon you for a sign and a wonder, and on your descendants forever.
“Because you did not serve [ONLY] the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your [covetous thieving lawyer] enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of everything; and He will put a yoke of iron [franchise codes] on your neck until He has destroyed you. The Lord will bring a nation against you from afar [the District of CRIMINALS], from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flies [the American Eagle], a nation whose language [LEGALESE] you will not understand, a nation of fierce [coercive and fascist] countenance, which does not respect the elderly [assassinates them by denying them healthcare through bureaucratic delays on an Obamacare waiting list] nor show favor to the young [destroying their ability to learn in the public FOOL system]. And they shall eat the increase of your livestock and the produce of your land [with “trade or business” franchise taxes], until you [and all your property] are destroyed [or STOLEN/CONFISCATED]; they shall not leave you grain or new wine or oil, or the increase of your cattle or the offspring of your flocks, until they have destroyed you.
[Deut. 28:43-51, Bible, NKJV]
THEIR RESPONSE:
If you say it doesn’t apply barring any privileged activity—yes, I agree.
But you are making BLANKET ASSERTIONS that 1441 “doesn’t apply to US nationals.”
That is a blanket statement!
OUR REPONSE:
It doesn’t apply without an election. That’s the ONLY thing we have been talking about ALL DAY AND for the past 25 years.
Earth calling YOU! Are you even paying attention?
THEIR RESPONSE:
No. The other day, you said:
“1.1441-1 only applies to aliens.”
This is where my ability to communicate a complex issue comes in.
This stuff has to be worded EXACTLY RIGHT!
I got lost because I didn’t assume your context. I took your statement as absolute.
OUR RESPONSE:
You misread me us. That was in the CONTEXT of this ai discovery, that you clearly didn’t pay attention to and need to study AGAIN:
You also haven’t done your homework on the above copilot dialog. It says you can ELECT to become an “individual” and thus ADD yourself to the individual in 26 C.F.R. 1.1441-1(c)(3) through an election.
The presumption for ALL members of FTSIG.ORG and SEDM.ORG is that they NEVER CONSENT or ELECT TO ANYTHING and turn every occasion into an opportunity make the government a privileged buyer and you the merchant. And then use an ANTI-FRANCHISE FRANCHISE to enslave THEM. Fight fire with fire.
Government would have to blow up their entire revenue scheme or deny equal protection if they don’t let me do the same thing THEY are doing.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Here’s how I would have said it:
“1441 only applies to US nationals IF they consent to activity that would OTHERWISE require withholding. If they don’t, then it only applies to aliens.”
Meaning that sec. 1441 DOES apply to US nationals if they are VOLUNTARILY engaged in privileged activity. Perhaps voluntarily connecting. Or, required to furnish an SSN but don’t. Then, backup withholding would be appropriate.
OUR RESPONSE:
U.S. nationals:
- 1.1441-1 “foreign person” withholding requires an election.
- Backup withholding requires DUTY to provide ssn.
- BOTH of the above must be listed in 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b)(2).
- Not listed: Not a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” in 26 U.S.C 871 and no tax obligation.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Yes. For 1441 to apply to a U.S. national. I agree.
I think our convergence continues….
My point was only this: sec. 1441 CAN apply to US nationals.
OUR RESPONSE:
This has been my position since the beginning 25 years ago. We just haven’t documented it completely until now. The only reason there is even a need for convergence is because you aren’t reading what’s already there and has been there for the last year.
26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b)(2) is the KEY. SSN is an indicator of privilege and the origin of the ability to mandate ANYTHING. It is evidence of a LICENSED use of government property or services that require reimbursement and civil obligation as a quasi-contractual or equitable matter.
THEIR RESPONSE:
Excellent. I think we got this resolved! 💥🫵👍
OUR RESPONSE:
A summary of our position on withholding against American nationals who are nonresident aliens:
1. 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 “foreign person” withholding requires an election.
2. Backup withholding in 26 U.S.C. §3406 requires DUTY to provide SSN before it can happen.
3. BOTH of the above must be listed as privileges in 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2). This is the KEY. SSN is an indicator of privilege and the origin of the ability to mandate ANYTHING. It behaves as a “franchise mark” and this is EXACTLY the reason the Bible calls it “The Mark of the Beast”.
4. If the activity you are engaging in is NOT listed in 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(b)(2), then you are not an “individual” in 26 U.S.C. §871 and no tax obligation WHATSOEVER.
5. CONSENT or ELECTION CREATES the civil “person” or “individual” ALWAYS in the case of a nonresident alien. This is a result of the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court. See:
Acquiring a “Civil Status”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/
6. Members and users of this website MAY NOT use ANY of the information or materials on this website if they consent or elect ANYTHING! We only deal with “nontaxpayers” and “non-persons”. Anything else would be FORNICATING with the devil and make us a biblical harlot:
Your Rights as a “Non-Taxpayer”, Publication 1a, Form #08.008
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NontaxpayerBOR.pdf
7. Scripture confirms the above approach by saying:
“Come out from among them [the government idolaters and statists] And be separate [foreign but not alien], says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
[2 Cor. 6:17, Bible, NKJV]
SOURCE: Section 3
https://ftsig.org/catalog-of-elections-in-the-internal-revenue-code/
“Happy Father’s Day [2025], our Father in Heaven. We’re setting ALL your children FREE indeed and doing EXACTLY what you commanded in the process!”
“Is this not the fast [act of faith, worship, and OBEDIENCE] that I [God] have chosen [for believers]:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke [franchise, contract, tie, dependency, or “benefit” with the government]?”
[Isaiah 58:6, Bible, NKJV]“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the [government] captives
And the opening of the prison [government FARM, Form #12.020] to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;”
[Isaiah 61:1-2, Bible, NKJV]
SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/about/who-we-are-generally-objectives/