FAQS: About the Nonresident Alien Position

By ftsig-admin | December 26, 2024

EDITORIAL:

This series of questions comes incorporated into the substitute W-8BEN form below that we provide. They are provided here for your reuse in other circumstances:

W-8SUB, Form #02.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf

IMPORTANT NOTE:  The subject of use of the nonresident alien position by American Nationals is a subject of great disinformation and misunderstanding by the public.  If these questions and answers don’t answer all of your concerns, please read and rebut the following document and provide your rebuttal to the person who gave you this form so that those objections can be promptly addressed and any inaccuracies in this form can be corrected promptly. 

  1. Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.045
    https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf
  2. Proof that American Nationals are Nonresident Aliens, Form #09.081
    https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofAnNRA.pdf
  3. Rebutted False Arguments About the Nonresident Alien Position When Used by American Nationals, Form #08.031- The rules for rebuttal are found in section 3 of the below document
    https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebArgNRA.pdf

For a definition of the symbology relating to “United States”  and “Citizen” on this handout, see:

Disclaimer, Sections 4.32 and 4.33
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm

QUESTION 1:

Are you a “foreign person”?

ANSWER 1:

Yes, but the term is NEVER actually DEFINED anywhere in the I.R.C., so it doesn’t mean anything.  26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(2)(i) doesn’t define it either.  It DESCRIBES but not DEFINES what it is NOT, but not what it IS.  This is because Congress cannot define things it doesn’t have jurisdiction over and some provable property interest in.  I can therefore be a “foreign person” WITHOUT being:

(1) An “individual” for the purposes of WITHHOLDING under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 because those parties are all “aliens” (foreign nationals) or

(2) A “person” under 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) or 26 U.S.C. §7343 or even 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(1), because these people have to be VOLUNTARILY privileged either through a voluntary domicile or an election, which I am NOT.  See:
IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf.

26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3) limits “individuals” to aliens ONLY for 26 U.S.C. §1441 withholding and nowhere includes Fourteenth Amendment nationals of the United States in states of the Union.  If you believe otherwise, please provide the proof NOW or forever be estopped from later challenging.  This is because such withholding uses Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS as its only authority that doesn’t apply to American Nationals such as me.  However, 26 U.S.C. §873 identifies “nationals of the United States**” (the federal zone, not me) as “nonresident alien individuals”, but ONLY when they pursue PRIVILEGED deductions, which I am not doing here and which do NOT relate to foreign person withholding in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1.  Thus, I REMAIN a “non-individual” and “foreign person” not a subject to withholding on ONLY “aliens” and not “nationals” under 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 as proven below:
https://ftsig.org/lawfully-avoiding-foreign-person-withholding/

QUESTION 2:

Were you born in a foreign country?

ANSWER 2:

No. See block 2.  States of the Union are legislatively foreign with respect to national government because of the separation of powers but they are not “countries” or “nations”.  New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U.S. 76 (1883).

QUESTION 3:

Do you have a foreign passport?

ANSWER 3:

No.  See block 9.  The states of the Union are legislatively but not constitutionally “foreign” with respect to the national government due to the separation of powers, but they don’t issue their own unique passports.  Some used to and STILL do.  They must retain this right in case the national government is unavailable to execute it.

QUESTION 4: 

How can you be a “nonresident alien” if you were born in a state of the Union?

ANSWER 4: 

22 C.F.R. §51.2 identifies everyone eligible to receive a USA passport such as people in constitutional states of the Union as “U.S. nationals”.  The IRS website says “U.S. nationals” are “nonresident aliens”:

4.1.  Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M), Section 3.38.147.2 and 3.38.147.3.1 through 3.38.147.3.12 discusses “international taxpayers” and “nonresident aliens”; https://www.irs.gov/irm/part3/irm_03-038-147r#idm139636844616640.

4.2.  I.R.M. 3.38.147.3.1(10) INCORRECTLY defines all “nonresident aliens” as including only aliens.  HOWEVER, the IRS Form 1040NR instructions at I.R.M. 3.38.147.3.3 (01-01-2022), 3.38.147.3.4 (01-01-2020), 3.38.147.3.5 (11-19-2019), and 3.38.147.8.3.1 (01-01-2022) identify “U.S. nationals” as “nonresident aliens”.

4.3.  Further, the IRS Form 1040NR for years 1984 through 2017 itself recognized Americans living abroad in Mexico and Canada as “U.S. nationals”.  See:  Tax Return History:  Citizenship, https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship.htm

4.4.  I.R.M. 3.38.147.3.1(1) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i) identify an “alien individual” as someone who is NEITHER a “citizen” nor a “national”.  “U.S. nationals” from states of the Union do not satisfy this criteria and therefore are not “aliens” within the Internal Revenue Code for the purposes of withholding.  This also proves that the definition of “nonresident alien” in I.R.M. 3.38.147.3.1(10) is incomplete and needs to have “U.S. nationals” ADDED to it.  I think IRS incorrectly defines “nonresident alien” on their website to DECEIVE the average American into filing the WRONG tax return, the 1040, which makes them a WORLDWIDE SLAVE to pay off public debt in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Further:

a. The inference is that if they will issue you a passport, 22 C.F.R. §51.2 implies that you are a “U.S. national”, EVEN IF you are a Fourteenth Amendment or POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL Citizen*.

b. The regulation that 22 C.F.R. §51.2 derives from the statute at 22 U.S.C. §212, which actually says allegiance is all that is required to bet a passport.

c. Allegiance is equivalent to NATIONALITY and “national of the United States”. 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) defines such allegiance, but 8 U.S.C. §1401 8 U.S.C. §1408, 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22), and 22 C.F.R §51.1 all limit that allegiance ONLY to areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, including territories and possessions and excluding states of the Union.

d. The only thing that CIVIL laws of Congress, including Title 8, can relate to is areas within their exclusive jurisdiction or people voluntarily engaged in privileges extraterritorially.  Areas within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union are NOT within these areas because states of the Union are LEGISLATIVELY but not CONSTITUTIONALLY foreign because of the separation of powers (Form #05.023). That is why laws of Congress can only describe or define CIVIL “U.S.** Nationals” in 8 U.S.C. §1408 as being from possessions and not constitutional states.

e. So, you are a “national of the United States*” (the country) and a “U.S.*** national” under the common law but not any civil statute if they will issue you a passport as an American National from a state of the Union. The 22 C.F.R §51.1 definition of “U.S.** national” only covers HALF of the “nationals of the United States*” (the COUNTRY), which are in the possessions and territories and who are “nationals of the United States**” (federal zone).  The other half are in the states of the Union and are covered by COMMON LAW “nationals of the United States***” as POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL Citizens*, who are NOT CIVIL STATUTORY “U.S. nationals” under 8 U.S.C. §1408 or 22 C.F.R. §51.1.  They are, HOWEVER, “U.S. nationals” under 22 C.F.R. §51.2 includes BOTH “U.S.* nationals” for the COUNTRY and “U.S.** nationals” of the territories and possessions mentioned in 22 C.F.R §51.1.

f. No CIVIL statute of the national government can abrogate constitutional rights so they can’t pass any statute that even recognizes people in states of the Union, either as STATUTORY CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizens**+D” or “non-citizen nationals”.  POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens* of the United States*** in states of the Union therefore do not and cannot even appear in the CIVIL statutes of  Title 8 of the U.S. Code because they are from a legislatively but not constitutionally FOREIGN state.  That is why stats of the Union are identified with a LOWER CASE “s” in federal statutes and regulations such as 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2(c)(2)(ii).  The CONSTITUTION alone establishes their POLITICAL Citizen* status and doesn’t need and CAN’T HAVE ANY statute to implement enforce by congress.  The “nationals of the United States[**]” identified as “individuals” in 26 U.S.C. §873 when pursing privileged DEDUCTIONS therefore are the SAME “nationals of the United States* from territories and possessions mentioned in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and NOT those in the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Under basic rules of construction, statutory laws enacted by legislative bodies cannot impair rights given under a constitution. 194 B.R. at 925.”
[In re Young, 235 B.R. 666 (Bankr.M.D.Fla., 1999)]

“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 [under STATUTES of a foreign power] of its own citizens.”
[Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d. 871, 879 (1947);
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13809397457737233441]

“The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts [UNDER THE COMMON LAW AND NOT STATUTE], and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.
[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

g. Common law “nationals of the United States***” from states of the Union (who are NOT STATUTORY “U.S. nationals” in 8 U.S.C. §1408 or “nationals of the United States**” in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)) are described in:

QUESTION 5: 

How can you be “foreign” if you live and/or were born in the United States?

ANSWER 5:

The statutory geographical definition of “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) does not expressly include states of the Union. Most people falsely presume that the geographical “United States” in the context of the Internal Revenue Code includes states of the Union. The geographical term “United States” in the context of the constitution and the term “United States” as used in the Internal Revenue Code are not equivalent and mutually exclusive. We refer to these respectively as the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States” and the STATUTORY “United States”. EACH of these two is legislatively “foreign” with respect to the OTHER because of the separation of powers.  The term “United States” can also be used to refer to the government as a corporation, but I’m not consensually serving within that context as a statutory “employee” or officer in the context of this transaction either per 5 U.S.C. §2105.  See Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc. v. Galveston County Appraisal Review Board, 76 S.W.3d. 575, 585 (Tex. App. 2002) as an example of interpreting terms in their “legal context” instead of their geographical context.  Those who (1) are NOT domiciled within or consensually doing business within the geographical “United States”, or (2) DO NOT have “effectively connected” earnings from WITHIN the “United States****” (federal corporation, not geography) as an officer but who NEVERTHELESS mistakenly CLAIM that either they or their earnings are from this place or fictional corporation on a tax form, by default are, through their usually legally ignorant actions, effectively donating their earnings to a public office, public use, and public purpose as a result, often unknowingly.  The result is that such earnings are “effectively connected” to the voluntary “trade or business” excise taxable franchise and office within the government corporation.  I just don’t happen to be someone STUPID enough to do that and shouldn’t be punished or denied an account or a business opportunity for not being STUPID.  And such a mistake by most people in doing this, by the way, doesn’t constitute “CONSENT” as legally defined either, so it’s not really a lawful conversion from PRIVATE to PUBLIC in such a case either.  See: Separation Between Pubic and Private;  https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf; The “Trade or Business” Scam; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf.

QUESTION 6:

Isn’t a “nonresident alien” just an “alien” who is “nonresident”?

ANSWER 6:

Absolutely not!  “Nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” is legally described but NOT “defined” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) as “neither a citizen of the United States nor a resident of the United States (within the meaning of subparagraph (A))”.  That description describes what a “nonresident alien INDIVIDUAL” is NOT, but not what it IS, so it’s not a legal definition.  And it recognizes that one can be a “nonresident alien” in the TITLE, but not an INDIVIDUAL in the BODY.  What STATUTORY “citizens and residents” have in common is a domicile within the STATUTORY geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) as federal territory not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any constitutional state of the Union.  26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is a DESCRIPTION rather than a LEGAL DEFINITION because a real legal definition would EXPRESSLY list all things that are included and the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation would exclude everything NOT expressly listed.   The reason they don’t provide a real LEGAL DEFINITION of “nonresident alien” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is because they don’t want the average American to realize that they TOO are included in the definition and that they have no jurisdiction to directly impose duties over these people.  There are lots of things listed on the 1040NR return NOT INCLUDED in the description of “nonresident alien” at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) and those are permitted, as a national born in state of the Union.  Financial institutions and companies have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY make up their own definition of “nonresident alien” and they must use this statutory description provided. If they don’t observe this limitation, then they are, in effect, exercising legislative functions reserved ONLY to the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH in violation of the separation of powers doctrine, and worst yet, doing so as a NON-GOVERNMENTAL entity.  Since “nationals” such as those born in constitutional states are not purposefully excluded and since the description in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) is NOT a legal definition, financial institutions and companies cannot arbitrarily exclude these things.

There are four possible citizenship statuses one can have: alien, national, citizen, and resident. The first two are a product of birth and are found in the CONSTITUTION in the case of states of the Union. The last two are a product of CHOICE and CONSENT and are STATUTORY. Those who consent to NOTHING in terms of government become either “aliens” or “nationals”, both of which are a product of BIRTH rather than CHOICE. Everyone born in a country is a “national” of that country, whether they want to be or not. When you get a passport, in fact, you can’t get one WITHOUT “allegiance” as required to 22 U.S.C. §212, and the citizenship status associated with ONLY ALLEGIANCE and NOT CHOICE is that of a “national”, which is described in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21). A U.S.A. passport is legal evidence of NATIONALITY and “NATIONAL” status, not STATUTORY “citizen” status under the Internal Revenue Code at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c).  The “citizen” mentioned in this regulation is, in fact, a STATUTORY citizen (territorial), not a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen born in a state of the Union under the Fourteenth Amendment and the original constitution.

QUESTION 7: 

Doesn’t the presence test make you “resident” in the statutory geographical “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) because it includes states of the Union and your address is or might be within a constitutional state of the Union?

ANSWER 7: 

The statutory geographical definition of “United States” at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) EXCLUDES states of the Union by not expressly INCLUDING them.  The presence test located at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) also only pertains to “ALIEN INDIVIDUALS” (meaning people who are NEITHER STATUTORY “citizen” nor “nationals”), which this submission clearly proves that I am not as someone born in a constitutional state who is a “national” per 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) and a “U.S. national” per 22 C.F.R. §51.2 (but NOT 22 C.F.R §51.1) such as myself.  In the case of aliens ONLY for the purposes of the PRESENCE TEST ONLY, the geographical “United States” includes states of the Union.  This is recognized in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2), which says of “ALIEN INDIVIDUALS” ONLY and not “nationals” or people born in the country the following:

26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2)

(2) Determination of presence—

(i) Physical presence.

For purposes of the substantial presence test, an [alien per 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)] individual shall be treated as present in the United States on any day that he or she is physically present in the United States at any time during the day. (But see §301.7701(b)–3 relating to days of presence that may be excluded.)

(ii) United States.

For purposes of section 7701(b) and the regulations thereunder, the term United States when used in a geographical sense includes the states and the District of Columbia. It also includes the territorial waters of the United States and the seabed and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial waters of the United States and over which the United States has exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural resources. It does not include the possessions and territories of the United States or the air space over the United States.

The statutory geographical definition of “United States” at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d) supersedes this for all purposes OTHER than the presence test.  26 U.S.C. §937 and 26 C.F.R. §1.937-1 recognize a DIFFERENT “bona fide residency” and presence test ONLY in possessions which encompasses ALL people instead of just “alien individuals”, but I don’t reside there so these are irrelevant.

QUESTION 8: 

Prove to me as simply as possible that the STATUTORY POLITICAL/TERRITORIAL “citizen*” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code (26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) is not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” (states of the Union ONLY)

ANSWER 8: 

Evidence in support:

8.1.  For STATUTORY purposes, “citizen” is always geographical rather than political.  This is because the statutes only apply to those domiciled in the forum per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) and domicile is always geographical and never political.

8.2.  The ONLY STATUTORY definition of “U.S. citizen” at 26 U.S.C. §3121(e) does not include states of the Union.  Per the rules of statutory construction and interpretation, they are therefore PURPOSEFULLY EXCLUDED.

8.3.  The regulation imposing the income tax at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) does not mention the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus purposefully excludes CONSTITUTIONAL “citizens of the United States (states of the Union ONLY per the rules of statutory construction.

8.4.  Since the liability to tax under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) attaches to the civil statutory status of “citizen” and “resident”, and slavery is a criminal offense and a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, the thing liable described in that regulation cannot be a human being, but an office within the national government created by act of Congress and property of Congress.  The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the office of “citizen” is an AGENT of the government:  

“Under either system, the term used is designed to apply to man in his individual character and to his natural capacities — to a being or agent [PUBLIC OFFICER!] possessing social and political rights and sustaining social, political, and moral obligations. It is in this acceptation only, therefore, that the term ‘citizen’, in the article of the Constitution, can be received and understood.” Rundle v. Delaware & Raritan Canal Company, 55 U.S. 80, 99 (1852). 

Being a STATUTORY “citizen” is a PRIVILEGE that must be VOLUNTARY or else slavery and theft are the result.  That fact is acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:  

“The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government.” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). 

It can’t be voluntary unless there is a way to UNVOLUNTEER or remove consent.  By removing consent to the PRIVILEGE and BENEFIT of STATUTORY “citizen” status, we unvolunteer.  To be subject to the obligations of the office of STATUTORY “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), one must therefore VOLUNTEER, and I choose NOT to volunteer.  I therefore avoid the civil statutory privileges, “benefits”, and corresponding civil obligations attached to the office of “citizen” and fall back to a mere unprivileged “U.S. national” by doing so.  The corrupt and covetous government doesn’t WANT you to unvolunteer, but they have to give you this option or else they cease to act consistent with the Constitution and implement slavery and human trafficking.

8.5.  The regulation imposing the income tax at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) QUALIFIES the TYPE of POLITICAL “citizen” it mentions as “subject to ITS jurisdiction” rather than:
a.  “subject to THEIR jurisdiction” (states of the Union) as the constitution does in the Thirteenth Amendment. 
b.  “subject to THE jurisdiction” (political jurisdiction) as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898).
The only way one can be “subject to ITS jurisdiction” is to: (1) be physically present on federal territory or; (2) to ACTUALLY and LAWFULLY work for the government as a public officer and statutory “employee” per 5 U.S.C. §2105.  Thus, it uses the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the locality this “citizen” is domiciled (as a national), physically present (as an ALIEN/foreign national), or working WITHIN as a fiction of law or public officer.  That locality, in turn, can only be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government and not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state.  The CONSTITUTIONAL “United States” includes states of the Union and excludes territory under the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government.  These two CIVIL jurisdictions can NEVER overlap because of the separation of powers at the heart of the constitution.  See:  Why the Fourteenth Amendment is Not a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf.

8.6.  The regulation imposing the income tax at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) references 8 U.S.C. §1401-1459 for the meaning of “citizen”.  Title 8 of the U.S. Code only addresses territorial citizens, not constitutional citizens.  NOWHERE in Title 8 of the U.S. Code is the Fourteenth Amendment even mentioned.

8.7.  Among the few remaining statutory “citizens” at this time are those from Puerto Rico, but even THESE STATUTORY “U.S. citizens” (under 8 U.S.C. §1401 and 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)) are identified in 26 U.S.C. §2209 as “nonresident not a citizen of the United States” and therefore “nonresident aliens” also!

8.8.  The D.C. Circuit court indicated that statutes aren’t even necessary and that the Constitution alone is sufficient for determining citizenship of those not born in exclusive federal jurisdiction.  Recall that the Constitution is “self-executing” and needs no statutes to enforce.  City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). 

“Finally, this Court is mindful of the years of past practice in which territorial citizenship has been treated as a statutory [PRIVILEGE! 8 U.S.C. §1401], and not a constitutional, right [Fourteenth Amendment]. In the unincorporated territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, birthright citizenship was conferred upon their inhabitants by various statutes many years after the United States acquired them. See Amicus Br. at 10-11. If the Citizenship Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] guaranteed birthright citizenship in unincorporated territories, these statutes [8 U.S.C. §1401-1459 mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c)] would have been unnecessary.” Tuaua v. U.S.A, 951 F.Supp.2d. 88 (2013).

8.9.  The following document PROVES that the “citizen” and “resident” made “liable TO” rather than “liable FOR” the income tax in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) can ONLY be an office within the Department of the Treasury serving under the Secretary of the Treasury and therefore NOT ONLY the parties described 8 U.S.C. §1401.  See:
How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

Exhaustive additional FREE evidence if you still don’t believe that the “citizen” upon whom the income tax is imposed is NOT a constitutional or state citizen but a territorial citizen and is not voluntary:

a.  Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011;
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm

b.  Citizenship Diagrams, Form #10.010
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipDiagrams.pdf

c.  W-8 Attachment:  Citizenship, Form #04.210
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8BEN/W-8Attachment-CITIZENSHIP.pdf

d.  Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006;
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

QUESTION 9: 

So “nonresident alien’ doesn’t mean what most people think it means.  What exactly is the correct definition of “nonresident alien” in the Internal Revenue Code that accurately describes EVERYTHING that is INCLUDED in the definition instead of what is EXCLUDED?

ANSWER 9: 

The SHORT answer is that “nonresident alien” means:

a.  Those born in the COUNTRY “United States” (nationals) who have no domicile in the statutory geographical “United States”, which is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) as the District of Columbia and NO part of any state of the Union. This geographical area is referred to in 18 U.S.C. §7 as “special maritime jurisdiction”.  OR

b.  Aliens (foreign nationals) who have no “residence” in the COUNTRY United States.  By “residence”, I mean the ABODE of a foreign national from another country while visiting any part of the COUNTRY “United States” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2).  26 C.F.R. §1.871-2 says that ONLY “alien individuals” (foreign nationals) can have a “residence”.  STATUTORY “citizens” therefore cannot be statutory “individuals” or “resident” while present anywhere in the COUNTRY because they are NOT subject to the “presence test” found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2).

The most OBVIOUS evidence that “nonresident alien” doesn’t mean what most people erroneously think of as someone born in a foreign country is found in the IRS instructions on preparing the 1040NR return, which also acknowledge “U.S. nationals”.  In common English, an “alien” is classically defined, however, as someone who is a FOREIGN national born in another country.  That is also the definition in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i) for “alien individuals”, in fact, which defines it as someone who is NEITHER a “citizen nor a national”.  This anomaly of putting “alien” in the term “nonresident alien” while ALSO including “U.S. nationals” in that category is what got us interested in this subject to begin with.

Let me explain further:  Income tax described in Title 26, Subtitles A and C is based ENTIRELY on DOMICILE (for nationals) or RESIDENCE (for aliens), and not NATIONALITY.  The U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932) when it held:  

“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.”  

State courts have added to this ruling that a national born in the “United States” the COUNTRY could escape income taxation ENTIRELY simply by not declaring a voluntary domicile!  See Barhydt v. Cross, 156 Iowa 271 (1912).

The federal income tax behaves as the equivalent of a state income tax for the District of Columbia and its STATUTORY (territorial) but not CONSTITUTIONAL (Fourteenth Amendment) citizens as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). In that case, the Supreme Court held:

“It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating [182 U.S. 244, 260] for the states; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under art. 1, 8, giving to Congress the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises,’ which ‘shall be uniform throughout the United States,’ inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States [described in the Constitution]. It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.” 

This case is the very reason the term “United States” is defined geographically as the District of Columbia ONLY 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).

Consistent with the above, the terms “alien” or “foreign” alone are NOWHERE defined in the Internal Revenue Code.  “domestic” is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) relative to a corporation or partnership only as being organized under the laws of the exclusive jurisdiction of a STATUTORY “State” or the STATUTORY geographical “United States” and not a constitutional state.  IRS would SPILL THE BEANS and destroy nearly all their revenue by simply defining these terms accurately or even admitting the definitions provided here.  That is why “alien” and “foreign” without a prefix or suffix are NEVER defined.  “foreign” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(5) is only defined in relation to corporations, because the “United States” itself is a foreign corporation with respect to a state of the Union as described in the Corpus Juris Secundum Legal Encyclopedia.  “foreign” is never defined geographically.  Any “alien individual” physically within the COUNTRY “United States” is the ONLY party with a “residence” mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code or implementing regulations at 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2.   This “alien individual”, however, is not a “resident alien” per 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A) because they must have a green card and ASK/CONSENT to be a “resident alien”.  Further, anyone serving in an office within the “United States” federal corporation is also “domestic” and a source “WITHIN the United States” for the purposes of income sourcing rules and is described in 26 U.S.C. §871(b) in the case of STATUTORY “nonresident aliens” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).  Anyone such as those born in states of the Union who is “alien” (foreign domicile and no STATUTORY “residence” as an “alien individual”) receiving payments from EITHER the “United States” federal corporation (28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A)) or from the statutory geographical “United States” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) then is receiving “U.S. source” income under 26 U.S.C. §871(a).  So, unless a STATUTORY “nonresident alien” works WITHIN the “United States” federal corporation as a public officer or receives payments from that corporation or from the District of Columbia, they can earn no “U.S. source” income except by MISTAKE or CONSENT.  Any other interpretation of 26 U.S.C. §871 would produce a DIRECT interference with the right to contract of multiple parties if both parties to any financial transaction were private and constitutionally protected and not subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.  It would also be THEFT and an unconstitutional taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.

Only STATUTORY “alien individuals” are defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3)(i) and they are defined as: “The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c).”  The “citizen” mentioned in this definition is a statutory TERRITORIAL (Puerto Rico) citizen, not a state citizen born in a constitutional state.  The “national” mentioned in this definition is that defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)(A) and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(21) (state citizens).  Within that definition of “individual”, the only way that those born anywhere in the COUNTRY “United States” can become STATUTORY “individuals” is when they have a “tax home” abroad per 26 U.S.C. §911(d).  “Tax home” in that scenario doesn’t mean domicile or even “residence” as defined in 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2 for “alien individuals” ONLY, but the place a CONSENTING STATUTORY “citizen” temporarily resides while representing the civil statutory office of “citizen” and “resident” within the department of the Treasury.  You cannot be an “alien individual” and a “national” at the same time.  You can, however, be “alien” and “foreign” in the sense of the Internal Revenue Code by (1) Not having a domicile in the statutory geographical United States as a “national” or (2) not having a “residence” anywhere in the COUNTRY “United States” as an “alien individual” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) and 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-1(c)(2).

I know this might sound confusing to the uninitiated who have no legal training, but I assure you it is ABSOLUTELY correct and a product of YEARS of studying how the IRS deliberately deceives the public in order to maximize its revenue ILLEGALLY.  It has also been verified by retired U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!  IRS deceives mainly by legal “words of art”, “equivocation” of geographical terms, OMISSION in defining key terms (such as “foreign” or “alien”), and being unaccountable for the accuracy of anything it says or writes.  Why would you trust them at all rather than reading the laws mentioned here and verifying the truth yourself like any conscientious freedom minded American would?  Deception of the IRS, the courts, and even the legal profession on the jurisdictional issues discussed herein is exhaustively described in the following FREE document which I encourage you to read as I have and to refer your loved ones to:  Legal Deception, Propaganda, and Fraud, Form #05.014; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/LegalDecPropFraud.pdf.

QUESTION 10: 

My computer system does not allow me to enter people with U.S.A. passports as “foreign person” if you have a United States passport. How can I do it?

ANSWER 10:

See block 6 of the attached form.  Select “OTHER” for the country and then enter “USA”.

QUESTION 11: 

How can you NOT be subject to reporting as a “foreign person“”?

ANSWER 11:

Legal terms should NEVER be PRESUMED to have an ordinary meaning when a statutory definition is provided.  The term “trade or business” is a “word of art” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) as “the functions of a public office”. Only those engaged in such an office are subject to reporting under 26 U.S.C. §6041(a). This INCLUDES “foreign persons” who file a Form W-8SUB and who would otherwise be the target of IRS Form 1042s reporting.  IRS Form 1042s instructions indicate that it reports “gross income” and not “trade or business” income as required by 26 U.S.C. §6041(a), so it’s a BOGUS form with no legal authority whatsoever to even exist.  A “foreign estate” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(31) is not engaged in a “trade or business” and so wouldn’t be subject to 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) reporting, including the IRS Form 1042s.

QUESTION 12: 

How can you not be subject to withholding as a “foreign person” under 26 U.S.C. §1441 (passive earnings under 26 U.S.C. §871(a)) and 26 U.S.C. §3406 (backup withholding for employment under 26 U.S.C. §871(b))?

ANSWER 12:

Earnings subject to withholding must originate from the STATUTORY geographical “United States” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).  I do not maintain a physical office in THE “United States” corporation, the geographical “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10), or a public office there either. Therefore, I am legislatively “foreign” and a “foreign estate”. The fact that you might THINK that YOU are subject to withholding WITHOUT your consent does not make it so.  I must rely on facts as they really are on my withholding forms, and not what YOU THINK they are or even WANT them to be.

QUESTION 13: 

Does the IRS recognize what you have said here?

ANSWER 13:

Of course. They accept 1040-NRs all the time from people in states of the Union, called the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States“.  I’d be happy to show you a return they have accepted if I have one and you don’t believe me. They understand that slavery in this country is ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE, including in the STATUTORY “United States” under the Thirteenth Amendment. As a consequence, the IRS knows that anything that carries a civil obligation which does not injure others must be voluntary and avoidable. This includes the civil status of “citizen” and “resident”, who are made LIABLE TO rather than LIABLE FOR the tax in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) on their WORLDWIDE earnings. Is slavery and human trafficking throughout the ENTIRE WORLD lawful? The process of volunteering occurs based on the CIVIL STATUS one VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES for themselves, such as “foreign person“, “U.S. Person“, “citizen”, “resident”, etc. As the only owner of yourself and a non-slave, you are the only one who can decide what civil status you want to have in relation to all others, both legally and politically, including “foreign person” or “U.S. person“. To disallow you from doing this would be a violation of your First Amendment right of political and legal association or lack thereof and a violation of your right to contract or not contract. They don’t want to advertise these facts for obvious reasons, but when push comes to shove and they receive a 1040-NR from someone in a state of the Union, they routinely accept it and process it and usually refund most of the earnings of those born and domiciled in the constitutional states of the Union.

QUESTION 14: 

Why don’t more Americans do this?

ANSWER 14:

Because very few Americans actually read the law, including members of the legal profession. But the law is on your side if you read it and follow it!  It’s not immoral or harmful to you or anyone else to just read the law and FOLLOW it. The U.S. Supreme Court has even implied that those who don’t read and understand the law are bad citizens.  I’d like to encourage you to do that for yourself.

QUESTION 15: 

So people have to volunteer for income tax as someone in a state of the Union or the CONSTITUTIONAL “United States”?

ANSWER 15:

Yes. Absolutely.  Here is how you do that:

How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024;
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf.

You are free to leave the federal plantation if you want to. The jailhouse door is wide open with the key hanging out of the lock, for those that want to learn to leave the prison of their own legal ignorance by reading the law for themselves and following it. What’s wrong with THAT?

“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]

QUESTION 16: 

Why doesn’t anyone in the government or the legal profession want me to know these things and why do they refuse to talk about these things in their publications?

ANSWER 16:

Because they are all “Third Rail” issues which threaten the revenue, security, or profitability of the government or those in bed with them receiving privileges.  A “Third Rail” issue is anything that will get you NOT HIRED, FIRED, NOT PROMOTED, or “CANCELLED” if you bring it up in a business setting because it damages revenue. The love of money that is behind such issues, by the way, the Bible identifies as the ROOT OF ALL EVIL. 1 Tim. 6:10.

QUESTION 17: 

How can I learn more about this subject myself? There are obviously lots of things that the government and my company are not telling or teaching me in the public school or in my employee training.

ANSWER 17:

Read the following:

17.1. Foreign Tax Status Information Group (FTSIG) Website-thorough coverage of everything described here as well as how to file returns as an American National who is a “nonresident alien”.
https://ftsig.org

17.2. Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.045
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf

17.3.  Proof that American Nationals are Nonresident Aliens, Form #09.081https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofAnNRA.pdf

17.4.  Property View of Income Taxation Course, Form #12.046-Proves that your private, constitutionally protected property can only be taxed, regulated, or controlled WITH your consent in some form.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf

17.5.  Rebutted False Arguments About the Nonresident Alien Position When Used by American Nationals, Form #08.031
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebArgNRA.pdf

17.6.  Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf

For the purposes of the above documents, the term “non-person” has a custom definition.  It does NOT mean that I am NOT a CONSTITUTIONAL “person”, which is always a human being with CONSTITUTIONAL and COMMON LAW rights.  That custom definition can be examined in section 2.1 of the last document listed above.  The statutory definition of “person” when duties are owed to any government presupposes that those to whom it refers are exercising agency or office on behalf of the government corporation, which I am not in this case.  Anyone handling government property, such as a STATUTORY SSN or TIN, must do so as an agent or officer of the government, which is why I can’t provide you with a STATUTORY identifying number either in this case.  See Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2) and 44 U.S.C. §1505(a) for the origin of Congress’ authority to legislate DIRECTLY upon the public, which depends primarily on whether one is handling government property or engaging in contracts or employment with the government.  Absent such authority in this case proven WITH court admissible evidence, I am protected by the Constitution and cannot be regulated in the conduct of my private, constitutionally protected affairs such as this transaction and must be left alone as a matter of justice and law.  This is also further explained in:

QUESTION 18: 

I’d like to involve the corporate counsel or CPA.  Would you be willing to meet with them to discuss this further, because I am not a lawyer, paralegal, or tax practitioner?

ANSWER 18: 

Absolutely.  I’d be happy to meet, discuss, and defend anything appearing in this withholding form.  I have absolutely nothing to hide and am doing my VERY BEST to obey the law as I understand it.  I will bring one or more witnesses to the meeting and reserve the right to do an audio or video recording of the entire meeting.  Calling such a meeting shall constitute constructive/implied consent to recording if the meeting is conducted in a one-party state.

CONCLUSIONS:

NOW do you understand why the IRS SPINS the word “nonresident alien” by not including “U.S. nationals”, and why they don’t want to admit that people in states of the Union are “U.S. nationals” even though abundant authorities available elsewhere exhaustively prove otherwise?  It’s a “Third Rail Issue” that would adversely impact their revenue.  They are in business to “service” people and not actually protect their freedom or private property.  That means you better either get good at bending over or start reading and following the law so you don’t have to anymore.  All of this legal subterfuge with “words of art” is just a trap (what judges call a “springe”) to recruit more “customer” volunteers as described in:

How State Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024;
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

Posted in FAQs and tagged