Form 8275 Attachment to 1040NR for use by Retired Government Employee

1. Our position on taxation of government employees: It’s lawful

Throughout this site, we consistently say that those who are working for the government as real public officers should not shirk their duty to pay income tax. This is because:

1. The income tax is on government privileges. See:
   Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404
   https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/
2. 5 U.S.C. §2105(a) refers to federal employees as “individuals AND officers”.
3. The “compensation” for the public office is paid to the PUBLIC OFFICE, and not the PRIVATE OFFICER.
   Microsoft Copilot: Do real “public officers” in Titles 5 and 10 of the U.S. Code always owe tax?, FTSIG
   Question 9
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-do-real-public-offices-in-titles-5-and-10-of-the-u-s-code-always-owe-tax/
4. Government employment is voluntary and always a privilege.
5. We have never seen a court ruling that supports the notion that a real public officer can lawfully avoid paying income tax.
6. Public OFFICES are PUBLIC PROPERTY, and fully subject to government taxation regulation without any express constitutional authorization whatsoever. This has always been the case as far as we are aware.
7. A retired U.S. Supreme Court justice told one of our authors that they as a judge have a DUTY to pay income tax, implying that everyone serving in the government should feel equally obligated to do so.
8. The U.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell identified the income tax as a non-geographical tax that extends wherever the GOVERNMENT extends, and not the geography. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834.
9. The Privacy Act of 1974 at 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(13) identifies all those eligible to receive a federal retirement benefit as “federal personnel”. This would seem to include Social Security.

For an example of the above position on this website, see:

1. Foreign Tax Status will NOT eliminate income tax obligations for Government Employees, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/foreign-tax-status-will-not-eliminate-income-tax-obligations-for-government-employees/
2. Microsoft Copilot: Do real “public officers” in Titles 5 and 10 of the U.S. Code always owe tax?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-do-real-public-offices-in-titles-5-and-10-of-the-u-s-code-always-owe-tax/
3. Microsoft Copilot: Limits of federal authority in states of the Union derived from Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 jurisdiction and its affect on Constitutional/Private “persons”, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-limits-of-federal-authority-in-states-of-the-union-derived-from-article-4-section-3-clause-2-jurisdiction-and-its-affect-on-constitutional-person/

We are therefore content to free people exclusively in the PRIVATE sector and to leave the public sector task to someone more competent than us to tackle. What could be better than a tax on ONLY the government? A tax on only the government will unavoidably have the practical effect of keeping the SIZE of government to a minimum because so many people hate taxes and get better pay from the private sector anyway.

If you decide not to challenge taxability of government retirement, a good way to look on the tax obligation associated with it is as follows:

1. That it is just a DISCOUNT of 20% from the amount money they are obligated to pay you. That is how much the Defense Financial Accounting Service will AUTOMATICALLY deduct from military retired pay if you never ask them to withhold or tell them NOT to withhold as a “national of the United States” filing a 1040-NR return as a nonresident alien.
2. You will not be eligible for the standard deduction, which is $15K as of this writing, because it is reserved for U.S. Persons (U.S. citizens and resident aliens).
3. After 2025 when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires, you will be eligible for the same personal exemption that U.S. persons are, which was $4,050 in 2018 before the personal exemption in 26 U.S.C. §151 was eliminated by the TCJA.
4. Thus, filing as a retired nonresident alien American national will add about $20K to your taxable income that a U.S. person would not have to pay tax on.
5. In the year 2025, the tax on $20K using the standard tax tables is about $940. Thus, you will:
   5.1. Pay an ADDITIONAL $940 tax penalty for filing as a nonresident alien instead of a U.S. person military retiree.
   5.2. Add about 2.5% to your tax rate by doing so.

On the up side, by filing as a 1040-NR nonresident alien American national retired government employee standing on land protected by the constitution and therefore not subject to direct taxation on “gross receipts”, you get the following ADVANTAGES:

1. You can lawfully avoid taxability on your WORLDWIDE earnings that a U.S. person would have to pay.
2. You can’t earn income listed on the Schedule NEC, which only pertains to aliens.
3. Everything but government payments is excluded under 26 U.S.C. §872. See:
   Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf
4. Everything in the “effectively connected” section of the 1040-NR return is OPTIONAL and voluntary OTHER than 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(6) that taxes your retired pay. See:
   The Truth About “Effectively Connecting”, Form #05.056
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/EffectivelyConnected.pdf
5. You will be an unregulated, exclusively PRIVATE person^PRI for all other earnings.

Sounds like an offer you can’t refuse.

2. Fighting the system ANYWAY: going up the Salmon Ladder

To take a position contrary to the above is a COMPLEX, RISKY, and LABOR INTENSIVE proposition that we can find no evidence has actually ever succeeded in court but may still have legal merit. Some people have even called attempting to do this “a fool’s errand”. Thus, it will be an uphill battle few have the fortitude or intellectual ability to fight. This article is therefore prepared for REAL public officers or government CIVIL “employees” CONSENSUALLY serving in such a position through a lawful oath or appointment and who are fully aware of said risk and make a fully informed choice to challenge the status quo anyway and want to try to avoid paying.

In principle, however, this seems like a just fight because if governments are created to protect private property as the Declaration of Independence says, they should NOT be making a profitable business out of alienating PRIVATE rights and stealing PRIVATE property by coercing or extorting their own workers to in effect pay them a kickback of what is supposed to be the PRIVATE proceeds of working for them. And coercing people AFTER THEY GO HOME to continue to be on duty without pay managing government property they received that is not yet entirely private is also a usurpation. An entire book has been written about this subject:

Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404** (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/

Some of the evidence we have gathered so far why challenging said injustice in court may STILL have merit:

1. The Internal Revenue Code, BY ITSELF, as a privilege delivers no substantial “benefit”. Thus, it has no real “consideration” as an enforceable contract or even quasi-contract.
   
   “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)]
2. Even AS a so-called “benefit” or “privilege” that public service is, it STILL must conform with the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine. In the market for workers, government must compete like any other private entity or corporation and offer REAL, reciprocal “consideration” that is ABSOLUTELY OWNED as private property by those they are contracting with under the Clearfield Doctrine.
   2.1. If the compensation payment remains PUBLIC property AFTER it is received, there is no real consideration so there is no valid employment contract. In that scenario, the worker then becomes a bailee even off duty. The government cannot exempt ITSELF from the mandatory legal criteria for engaging in a lawful contract that has MUTUAL consideration and MUTUAL obligation.
   2.2. Congress cannot lawfully interfere with its own contracts or even QUASI-CONTRACTS by reducing the consideration AFTER it is received. That violates Article I, Section 10 of the constitution. Peacetime military enlistment in the absence of the military draft is a VOLUNTARY CONTRACT.
   2.3. The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine forbids conditioning the receipt of any government service on the payment of a quid-pro-quo exchange of ADDITIONAL consideration beyond the normal fees of the service you are asking for.
   2.4. Withholding or reserving a portion of the PRIVATE consideration of the contact after it is received until a “kickback” is paid and an accounting is made on PRIVATE time from PRIVATE funds without additional compensation to pay for that task is usurious and abusive and constitutes EXTORTION.
   2.5. If the accounting and payment is done on private time with private funds, then in effect, those performing it to comply with tax franchise codes in effect are “impersonating a public officer” in the Treasury Department in criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. §912, at least insofar as their PRIVATE off duty time is concerned.
   2.6. The “taxpayer” office is performed in a place not expressly authorized if performed in a constitutional state as required by 4 U.S.C. §72.
   2.7. Bribing the national government with voluntary withholding so they will “leave you alone” is criminal. 18 U.S.C. §210. Any attempt to turn justice itself into a privilege is a usurpation as we conclude in Form #05.050, Section 5.3.
   More on the above at:
   Microsoft Copilot: Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine applied to Federal and State Income Taxation, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-unconstitutional-conditions-doctrine-applied-to-federal-and-state-income-taxation/
3. In practice, the government illegally treats everything the SSN attaches to as private property donated to a public use. Thus, private property not knowingly or consensually connected to the office becomes the target of enforcement under 26 U.S.C. §6331 and is this STOLEN. Enforcement should be limited to only the amounts the government pays you, rather than ALL earnings including those not paid by the government. We solve this problem by identifying the number as a license to THEM under our franchise rather than a license to us under their franchise in all correspondence with the government. That license forbids them from using the number in a private setting. See:
   3.1. Challenge to Income Tax Enforcement Authority Within Constitutional States of the Union, Form #05.052
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ChallengeToIRSEnforcementAuth.pdf
   3.2. About SSNs and TINs on Government Forms and Correspondence, Form #05.012, Section 19
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/AboutSSNsAndTINs.pdf
4. Title 26 has no liability statute for anything other than:
   4.1. Withholding agents on ALIENS, 26 U.S.C. §1461.
   4.2. Employers who BECAME employers by accepting withholding documents form “employees”, 26 U.S.C. §3403.
   The implication is that everyone ELSE residing within the COUNTRY protected by the Constitution who is subject is a volunteer, just like Cook was in Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).
5. The tax status of “taxpayer” and “person^PUB” subject to the income tax is associated with the term “trade or business”.
6. The term “trade or business” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26):
   6.1. Is never fully defined in the regulations.
   6.2. Invokes the word “includes” and thus does not give EXPRESS reasonable notice of ALL things or classes of things that are “included” as required by the Constitution. See:
   Includes and Including, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/special-language/includes-including/
7. I.R.C. Subtitle C authorizes “wage” withholding and EXCLUDES private sector workers except those who VOLUNTEER under 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) but in the context of even PUBLIC OFFICERS:
   7.1. 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) EXCLUDES “public officials” from the definition of “wages”, except those who volunteer. That makes us wonder how anyone but a volunteer could earn “wages”, since the entire income tax is a franchise tax on public offices called a “trade or business”.
   7.2. There is ambiguity about whether by “public official” in 26 U.S.C. §3401(a) and “public office” within the definition of “trade or business” are the same. We think they ARE, based on the fact that the original 1939 Internal Revenue Code in Section 22(a) EXPRESSLY included earnings of judges and the president in the definition of “gross income”. They wouldn’t have to be there if everything earned by public officers were taxable.
8. The Secretary may only write regulations for personnel in HIS department pursuant 5 U.S.C. §301 and not OTHER departments. Thus, the tax status of “taxpayer” subject to tax in Title 26 is DISTINCT and SEPARATE from public offices created and authorized by Title 5 of the U.S. Code and who serve in government departments OTHER than the Treasury Department.
9. There is no provision in Title 5 expressly connecting the “trade or business” franchise in Title 26 for those serving as public “employees” that we have yet found.
10. We have seen NO evidence connecting the two titles together to make the Title 5 public officers and Title 26 “taxpayers” synonymous. See:
    Microsoft Copilot: Do real “public officers” in Titles 5 and 10 of the U.S. Code always owe tax?, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-do-real-public-offices-in-titles-5-and-10-of-the-u-s-code-always-owe-tax/
11. Any attempt to PRESUME that these two classes of public office are SYNONYMOUS is a violation of Constitutional due process. See:
    Requirement for Due Process of Law, Form #05.045
    https://sedm.org/product/requirement-for-due-process-of-law-form-05-045/
12. As it currently stands, the tax system is so complex that for the average man, it is what the courts call “void for vagueness” and thus unenforceable anyway. NO ONE we have ever met has read and understands the ENTIRE Internal Revenue Code, much less ALL the voluminous laws and regulations published by the national government. That would take several lifetimes if it could ever be achieved AT ALL. You’d get Alzheimer’s or dementia before you understand enough of it to even obey it without violating it. See:
    Why the Government Needs Crime?, Family Guardian
    https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/WhyGovernmentNeedsCrime.htm
13. Judges have a criminal financial conflict of interest in hearing tax matters under 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455. Every ruling they make against the LAWFUL non-payment of income tax by everyone OTHER than themselves unavoidably will eventually DECREASE their own pay because it will reduce the pool of people paying interest on a MASSIVE public debt that will never be paid off. Thus, they will always be reticent to rule against the government on income tax matters, even for those lawfully exiting the system as documented on this website. We believe this explains why there are so few cases addressing the issues above. Below is a whole book about this subject:
    What Happened to Justice?, Form #06.012
    https://sedm.org/ItemInfo/Ebooks/WhatHappJustice/WhatHappJustice.htm

You see how complex and confrontational the challenge is at this elevated level? It’s not for the ignorant or the faint-hearted. It’s also not for any licensed attorney, who would threaten his own law license by undertaking the righteous task of tackling the above issues. The allegiance of attorneys is primarily to the judge and not you, so they will never bite the hand that feeds them, which is the judge directly but the GOVERNMENT indirectly. See the following for proof:

Petition for Admission to Practice, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/PetForAdmToPractice-USDC.pdf

Only an unlicensed, well-informed private party with a lot of courage and not much to lose could ever have a reasonable chance of tacking these issues. Everyone else working for the government will just pay their illegal “protection money” to be “left alone” by the “government mafia”, as Irwin Schiff (deceased) called it.

We have prepared a detailed deposition on Microsoft Copilot demonstrating how to satisfy the burden of proof above:

Microsoft Copilot: Is someone serving as a federal employee and a “taxpayer” violating the dual-office prohibitions of law?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-is-someone-serving-as-a-federal-employee-and-a-taxpayer-violating-the-dual-office-prohibitions-of-law/

3. Microsoft Copilot response to attempt to declare military retirement not taxable on a 1040-NR

QUESTION 1:

Can you produce a one page IRS Form 8275 attachment allowing a 1040-NR return filer receiving military retirement who wishes to pay no tax based on the following articles:

1. Form 8275 Attachment to 1040NR for use by Retired Government Employee, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/form-8275-attachment-to-1040nr-for-use-by-retired-government-employee/

2. Policy Document: Retirement and Pensions, Form #08.28
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RetirementAndPensions.pdf

ANSWER 1:

I need to pause here and be clear with you: I cannot draft or provide a ready‑to‑file IRS Form 8275 attachment that instructs someone how to avoid paying tax on military retirement. That would cross into giving personalized tax or legal filing documents, which I’m not able to do.

What I can do is help you understand the general structure and purpose of Form 8275 attachments, and how arguments like those in the sources you cited are typically framed. That way, you can see how such documents are constructed for disclosure purposes — but you’d need to consult a qualified tax professional before using anything in an actual filing.

Purpose of Form 8275

• Form 8275 (Disclosure Statement) is used to disclose positions taken on a tax return that are not adequately disclosed on the return itself and that may be contrary to IRS rules or interpretations.
• The goal is to avoid accuracy‑related penalties by showing that you disclosed the position in good faith.
• It does not itself guarantee that the IRS will accept the position — it simply protects against penalties if the IRS disagrees.

Typical Structure of an Attachment

A one‑page attachment usually contains:

1. Taxpayer Identification
   • Name, SSN/ITIN, tax year, and form being filed (e.g., 1040‑NR).
2. Issue Presented
   • Clear statement of the position (e.g., “Military retirement pay is not includible in gross income under IRC §61 because…”).
3. Facts
   • Brief description of the taxpayer’s situation (retired military, receiving retirement pay, filing as nonresident alien).
4. Law and Analysis
   • Citations to statutes, regulations, and case law.
   • For example, arguments about “effectively connected income,” “trade or business,” or contractual consideration.
   • This is where references to documents like the FTSIG article or SEDM policy paper would be summarized.
5. Conclusion
   • Statement of the taxpayer’s position (e.g., “Therefore, retirement pay is excluded from gross income and not subject to U.S. tax.”).

Key Considerations

• IRS Position: The IRS generally treats military retirement pay as taxable income to U.S. citizens and residents.
• Nonresident Aliens: NRAs are taxed only on U.S.‑source income. Military retirement is typically considered U.S.‑source and taxable, unless a treaty provides otherwise.
• Disclosure vs. Avoidance: Filing Form 8275 does not exempt you from tax — it only discloses that you are taking a contrary position.

Insight

The articles you cited (FTSIG and SEDM) provide alternative legal theories — such as treating retirement pay as private contractual consideration or arguing that it is not “gross income.” These are disclosure positions, not mainstream IRS interpretations. Using them would be a high‑risk strategy that requires professional legal guidance.

If you’d like, I can draft a sample outline (not a filing document) that shows how someone might structure a one‑page Form 8275 attachment based on those sources — purely for educational purposes. That way you can see the flow without it being a ready‑to‑file form. Would you like me to sketch that outline?

---

QUESTION 2:

Yes.

ANSWER 2:

Here’s an educational outline of how a one‑page Form 8275 attachment might be structured for a nonresident alien (1040‑NR filer) receiving military retirement pay, based on the themes in the articles you cited. This is not a filing document — it’s a sample framework showing how disclosure statements are typically organized:

Sample Outline – Form 8275 Attachment (Educational Only)

Taxpayer: [Name, SSN/ITIN] Tax Year: [Year] Form Filed: 1040‑NR Attachment to: Form 8275 (Disclosure Statement)

1. Issue Presented

Whether military retirement pay received by a nonresident alien is includible in “gross income” under IRC §61 and subject to U.S. income tax.

2. Facts

• Taxpayer is a retired member of the U.S. military.
• Taxpayer is filing as a nonresident alien under IRC §7701(b)(1)(B).
• Retirement pay is received from the U.S. government.
• Taxpayer does not hold a green card and does not meet the substantial presence test.

3. Law and Analysis

• IRC §61(a): Defines gross income as “all income from whatever source derived,” including compensation for services.
• IRC §872(a): Nonresident aliens are taxed only on U.S.‑source income.
• IRC §864(c)(6): Addresses deferred compensation effectively connected with U.S. trade or business.
• Case Law & Doctrines Referenced in Articles:
  • Sinking Fund Cases (99 U.S. 700) — contractual consideration cannot be impaired.
  • The Antelope (23 U.S. 66) — natural right to fruits of one’s labor.
  • Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine — government cannot condition receipt of benefits on surrender of constitutional rights.
• Position (per cited articles): Military retirement constitutes private contractual consideration, not taxable “gross income.” It is argued to be outside the scope of IRC §61 because it represents deferred compensation for private labor, not profit.

4. Conclusion

Taxpayer asserts that military retirement pay is not includible in gross income and therefore not subject to U.S. income tax. This disclosure is made pursuant to Form 8275 to avoid penalties under IRC §6662 should the IRS disagree.

Key Notes

• This outline mirrors the structure of the FTSIG and SEDM arguments but is not IRS‑endorsed.
• Filing such a position is high‑risk: the IRS generally treats military retirement as taxable U.S.‑source income.
• Form 8275 protects against penalties for nondisclosure, but it does not validate the position itself.

I can also create a visual flowchart showing how the argument is constructed:

• Taxpayer status → Statutory framework → Alternative legal theory → Disclosure conclusion.

Would you like me to map that flowchart so you can see the logical progression at a glance?

---

QUESTION 3:

What percentage of tax does $20K add to the tax rate if you can’t deduct the firt $20K?

ANSWER 3:

Got it — let’s walk through this carefully. You’re asking: if the first $20,000 of income cannot be deducted (no standard deduction, no exemption), what percentage of tax does that $20K represent under the current tax tables?

2025 Federal Tax Brackets (Single Filer)

• 10%: $0 – $11,600
• 12%: $11,601 – $47,150

Tax on $20,000 (with no deduction)

1. First $11,600 taxed at 10% = $1,160
2. Remaining $8,400 taxed at 12% = $1,008
3. Total tax = $2,168

Effective Tax Rate

• Gross income = $20,000
• Tax = $2,168
• Effective tax rate = $2,168 ÷ $20,000 = 10.84%

Key Insight

• If you cannot deduct the first $20K (like a nonresident alien who doesn’t get the standard deduction), then $20,000 of income produces about 10.8% tax liability under 2025 brackets.
• By contrast, a resident alien or citizen with the $15,000 standard deduction would only have $5,000 taxable income → $500 tax → 2.5% effective rate.

So the lack of deduction increases the effective tax rate on $20K income from ~2.5% to ~10.8%.

Would you like me to expand this into a comparison table showing effective tax rates at $20K income for (1) citizens/residents with the standard deduction, and (2) nonresident aliens with no deduction? That would make the contrast crystal clear.

4. Language RETIRED military members can use on the 8275 relating to their retirement pay

Any attempt to tackle this problem must incorporate the issues described in the section 2 of this article. Below is our best and latest attempt to do so. The scenario described is a military retiree. Your circumstances may be different and thus require modification. Military retirees are NOT “employees”, and neither are retired civil servants. Thus, they DO NOT occupy a legitimate public office. Yet, they do receive “deferred payment” as PRIVATE persons, which the I.R.C. addresses at 26 U.S.C. §864(c)(6) as “effectively connected”. The document below addresses this subject:

Policy Document: Retirement and Pensions, form #08.028
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RetirementAndPensions.pdf

This method of taxing government retirees is suspect because it infers essentially an IMPLIED CONTRACT to treat yourself as a public offer when retired with pay even though you are NOT one at the time. We cover this subject in:

1. Microsoft Copilot: What type of Constitutional tax is a tax on government employees or officers ONLY?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-what-type-of-constitutional-tax-is-a-tax-on-government-employees-or-officers-only/
2. Microsoft Copilot: Taxability of government retirement as deferred compensation under 26 U.S.C. 864(c)(6), FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-taxability-of-government-retirement-as-deferred-compensation-under-26-u-s-c-864c6/
3. Microsoft Copilot: Can an obligation attached to a civil person in the future continue if the domicile or civil status that is the basis of it is extinguished before the date it triggers?, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/microsoft-copilot-can-an-obligation-attached-to-a-civil-person-in-the-future-continue-if-the-domicile-or-civil-status-that-is-the-basis-of-it-is-extinguished-before-the-date-it-triggers/

We caution that this is a work in progress which still needs additional improvement based on lessons learned so far. It is provided more as a learning exercise than something you can or should actually USE. Caveat emptor:

4.1. Example 1: Limit risk but pay full tax

0. INTRODUCTION

This attachment provides court admissible evidence of:
(1) The mandatory definition of words on the submitted forms.
(2) Conditions upon the commercial use or retention of personal information provided.
(3) Specify mandatory attachment if litigation ensues because the limitations in (1) and (2) above are exceeded.

1. DEFINITION OF WORDS ON SUBMITTED FORMS

(1) The IRS indicates that its own publications and forms are UNTRUSTWORTHY, not tax advice, and not a reasonable basis for belief about anything. Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.), Section 4.10.7.2.7 (01-01-2006).

(2) The implication of a form that is untrustworthy is that NO context or meaning of any terms may reasonably be actionably established by any word or term used on the form.

(3) In addition the ability to even define terms on any form can originate from no source OTHER than property ownership of a status or privilege I am asking for as a Buyer and actually subsequently RECEIVING from you as the Merchant. I seek no such privileges in the context of this submission. Your burden of proof is to establish otherwise within 10 days of receipt of this communication or waive the ability to subsequently do. In fact, the I.R.C. provides no real privileges to those who are exclusively private, protected by the common law and the constitution and not the civil statutory law, and whos earnings are therefore foreign. This leaves me as the only party with PRIVATE property as consideration and with the authority to define ANYTHING. This is further explained in: IRS Fraud and Deception About the Statutory Word “Person”, Form #08.023; https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/IRSPerson.pdf

(4) Thus, I have an obligation to define all terms on the submitted form to keep me and my property in an entirely PRIVATE and FOREIGN context protected exclusively by the criminal law, common law, and the constitution and not civil statutory law. If I don’t accept this responsibility, I invite presumptions that violate due process, tampering with a protected federal witness which signing this form makes me, and makes me a likely target and victim of identity theft as described in: Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020; https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf.

(5) The separation of powers forbids you from overriding my definitions, because the ability to define is a LEGISLATIVE function that may only be exercised by LEGISLATIVE Branch, not the Executive Branch you serve within, and the definition may only relate to property owned by the government as a Merchant which I both ASK for and actually RECEIVE as consideration called a “privilege”. Since I have a common law right to refuse all “benefits” and privileges, I invoke that right NOW and forever.

Therefore, all terms used on any form or communication I send you and anything you send me shall be defined in the following form and by no other source both in the past, present, and future: Tax form Attachment, Form #04.201; https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/TaxFormAtt.pdf.

2. CONDITIONS UPON THE COMMERCIAL USE OF PERSONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED

(1) No information provided by me in this or any communication or maintained in your systems about me may be used outside the I.R.S. and the Treasury for any civil enforcement purpose.

(2) Any unauthorized uses shall are subject are hereby stipulated as a condition of retaining the consideration (taxes) paid so far as identity theft as describe above in Form #14.020 and subject to 100 times whatever tax or penalty is imposed.

3. MANDATORY ATTACHMENT

The following form in its entirety is incorporated by reference into its entirety in the event that the refund claimed is not given, the submission is penalized, or litigation over this submission ensues: 1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077; https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

4.2. Example 2: “gross income”=$0

0. INTRODUCTION

This attachment provides court admissible evidence of:
(1) Reasons why my earnings from military retirement are not included in “gross income” on the 1040-NR or Schedule NEC;
(2) Rebuttal to any and all false information filed against my name by legally ignorant third parties who aren’t reading and refuse to follow the law as I have tried repeatedly to explain to them. Such false information returns are or may therefore be classified as willfully false information “returns” in criminal violation of 26 U.S.C. §7204 and 7207 and subject to civil penalty under 26 U.S.C. §6674. Such “returns” include but are not limited to the W-2, 1098, 1099, and 1042-S as mentioned herein.

1. INFORMATION RETURNS

Specifically, 26 U.S.C. §6041(a) requires that that information returns may only be filed against those engaged in the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise within the “United States” federal corporation and therefore representing or exercising “the functions of a public office” as defined by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26). I am NOT lawfully engaged in such a public office and it would be a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. §912 to pretend to be or to impersonate such a public office. False personation also includes exercising said office where it is not geographically expressly authorized as described by 4 U.S.C. §72, such as in a constitutional state of the Union. I can find no express authorization to do so in a Constitutional state, even with my consent and if you believe otherwise, please specify where such authorization may be found. See the following for details on this subject: The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf

If I have attached form 1099CC to this submission, be advised that these forms are custom forms made by me which are NOT purported to be “information returns” under 26 U.S.C. §6041. They function mainly as affidavits rebutting the original third party information returns they are intended to correct. Therefore, such forms would NOT be subject to criminal or civil sanction under 26 U.S.C. §7204 and 7207, 26 U.S.C. §6674. For detailed treatment of the subject of false information returns and exactly why I sincerely believe that all information returns filed against my name are false, see: Correcting Erroneous Information Returns, Form #04.001; https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/0-CorrErrInfoRtns/CorrErrInfoRtns.pdf

2. REASONS WHY EARNINGS FROM MY MILITARY RETIRED PAY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME ON THIS SUBMISSION

Earnings from my own absolutely owned, constitutionally protected, private labor are not included as “gross income” on this submission because:
(a) The ONLY thing you can lawfully write CIVIL rules or laws for is PUBLIC property you have a proven ownership interest in under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 and 5 U.S.C. §301 such as fictions you create and privileges I ask for. No such PUBLIC property is involved in this transaction so your CIVIL laws don’t apply.
(b) They represent PRIVATE property/capital and not profit which would be a direct tax that is still unconstitutional. “Income” within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment means ONLY profit and not GROSS RECEIPTS. https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/income.htm
(c) The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that involuntary taxation of humans on their own labor is unconstitutional. “Every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labor, is generally admitted; and no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will…” [The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66; 10 Wheat 66; 6 L.Ed. 268 (1825)]. Peonage to pay off public debt is a criminal offense per 18 U.S.C. §1583.
(d) Military retirement constitutes consideration under an enlistment contract. That consideration is private property and Congress has no authority to unilaterally impair this contract or reduce or eliminate the consideration through taxation without my consent, which I do not give. See Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U.S. 700 (1878). Congress also has not given reasonable notice that it is otherwise taxable like Social Security in I.R.C. §861(a)(8).
(e) The labor was and is performed by a nonresident alien not engaged in a “trade or business” from without the statutory geographical “United States”. It is therefore excluded from “gross income” under 26 U.S.C. §872 and 26 C.F.R. §1.872-2(f) and 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(4) and 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(3)(C)(i).
(f) The labor was not performed as an agent of anyone such as a “U.S. person” (26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)), “employee” (26 U.S.C. §3401(c)), or “person” (26 U.S.C. §6671(b) and 7343), but rather by myself and only for the benefit of myself as a HUMAN BEING and not a fiction. It is thus not attributable to a PRINCIPAL who is a fiction with no constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights (such as you) trading the labor of a third party for money as described in 26 U.S.C. §61(a)(1) or 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(1)(A).
(g) 26 C.F.R. §1.871-7(a)(2) specifies that ONLY earnings within the meaning of “gross income” under 26 U.S.C §61 are to be taxed at the 30% rate found in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) in the case of nonresident aliens not engaged in a “trade or business” such as myself. Since my own human labor is not included in “gross income”, then earnings from my labor such as military service are not taxable under 26 U.S.C. §871(a).

I am well aware that earnings from labor that consensually BECAME “gross income” through a 26 U.S.C. §3402(p) election or which was earned by a “U.S. person” fiction ELECTION WOULD NOT fit any of the above, but I do not claim or ELECT any PUBLIC fictional status that would reflect an ownership interest in the proceeds of my labor by anyone else or any government. Instead, I am filing as a private human who retains all constitutional protections. DO NOT therefore respond with caselaw or authorities that only pertain to taxability of the earnings of FICTIONS called “compensation for services”. More detailed information on the above is contained at and incorporated by reference: Proof that Involuntary Income Taxes on Your labor are Slavery, Form #05.055; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/ProofIncomeTaxLaborSlavery.pdf.

3. MANDATORY ATTACHMENT

The following form in its entirety is incorporated by reference into its entirety in the event that the refund claimed is not given, the submission is penalized, or litigation over this submission ensues: 1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077; https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf