Historical Evolution of USPI

1. Original Intent Tax Model: 1789-1913

The original model of taxation was based on Original Intent of the Constitution described in the Federalist Paper. That model was too transparent for the liking of the powers that be. This period lasted from 1789 up to about 1913. During this period stamps and licenses were issued to mark the receipt of the privilege being taxed. We had an actual assessment officer, and even an express liability statute. Taxes were mostly indirect excise taxes on imports and not income taxes. The constitution forbids tax on exports from states but not imports.

U.S. Constitution

Article I Legislative Department

Section 9 Powers Denied to Congress

Clause 5. Duties On Exports From States

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

The Original Intent period instituted at least three Direct income taxes, some of which were declared unconstitutional, some of which were apportioned as required by the constitution, and others not:

  1. 1815: 3 Stat. 164 Ch. 21
  2. 1861: 12 Stat. 292. This act was repealed in 1872 after the famous License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) declared this tax unconstitutional.
  3. 1894: Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, 28 Stat. 570, Chap. 349, Section 73. This act was declared unconstitutional by the famous Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Pollock case above contains a valuable long history of income tax acts enacted and litigation relating to each act during the Original Intent period.

2. USPI Tax Model: 1913-Present

The U.S. Property Interest (USPI) Tax Model began on the date of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new taxing powers, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 250 U.S. 103 (1916), so the Amendment was all show. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to make the public BELIEVE that something had changed when it never actually did.

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 and the following conditions existed at that time:

  1. The 1040 form was first introduced in 1913.
  2. Nonresident alien was implemented in the code even way back then.
  3. There was no separate tax return form for nonresident aliens. A question was added to the 1040 return in 1919 asking whether the submitter was a “citizen or resident of the United States”
  4. There was no Internal Revenue Code at the time. The U.S. Code was not codified until 1926, when Title 26 was first created.

The MOTIVATION that triggered all this corruption were the following major events:

  1. Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in February of 1913, which was mainly show.
  2. Unconstitutional creation of the Federal Reserve Fiat Currency Scam during the Christmas recess of 1913 with an inadequate quorum of Senators. See:
    Money Scam, Form #05.041
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/MoneyScam.pdf

The creation of the Federal Reserve facilitated the widespread PRINTING of fiat currency originally linked to gold, which linkage was severed in 1933 on the 20 year anniversary of the Federal Reserve Act which would be expiring that year. They had to create an emergency to justify continuing it.

Whenever you implement a fiat currency system, you need to implement a method to remove currency from circulation to stabilize the supply of currency to prevent inflation. That is the MAIN function of the I.R.S. even to this day: To stabilize the fiat currency supply.

Fiat currency creation is accelerated by federal deficit spending, which triggers Treasury Bill issuance. That acceleration is usually maximized during wartime or economic crisis that necessitates stimulus like the COVID scenario. If the public buys the Treasury Bills upon issuance, the growth in spending is limited by their acceptance. But when the public loses interest in buying the Treasury Bills and the Federal Reserve buys the lions’ share, the system destabilizes and IMPLODES. That is the current condition of the system. More on this at:

  1. Money, Banking, and Credit Topic, Section 9: Federal Reserve, Family Guardian Fellowship
    https://famguardian.org/Subjects/MoneyBanking/MoneyBanking.htm#FEDERAL_RESERVE:
  2. The Creature from Jekyl Island, G. Edward Griffin
    https://archive.org/details/TheCreatureFromJekyllIslandGriffin
  3. GoldSilver, Mike Mahoney
    https://www.youtube.com/@Goldsilver

Only 4 years before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the U.S. Supreme court held the following in 1909, which gives us a clue about HOW the USPI would have to be implemented:

The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares, such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another State, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this court to be beyond the power of the legislature and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499Delaware &c. R.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property 203*203 without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417Mount Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Massachusetts, 509, 519.

Most modern legislation upon this subject has been directed (1) to the requirement that every citizen shall disclose the amount of his property subject to taxation and shall contribute in proportion to such amount; and (2) to the voidance of double taxation. As said by Adam Smith in his “Wealth of Nations,” Book V., Ch. 2, Pt. 2, “the subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the State. The expense of Government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interest in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called equality or inequality of taxation.”

[Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 US 194 (1905); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]

People residing in states of the Union are not domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. Thus, taxation of them by the national government would amount to what the Supreme Court called “an extortion”. To institute a federal income tax within the exclusive jurisdiction of Constitutional states, the national government therefore had to:

  1. Create a fictional straw man that IS domiciled within the jurisdiction of the national government called a “citizen* of the United States****” (federal corporation, not geography) that is a creation of and property of the national government.
    1.1. Because the straw man is PUBLIC PROPERTY, they had to put someone in charge of the property in a specific department, so they had the Secretary of the Treasury CREATE the status in the regulations at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1, even though the STATUTE didn’t define what it is. He has this authority under 5 U.S.C. §301 to manage PROPERTY and OFFICES in his department.
    1.2. The Secretary of the Treasury did not exceed his delegated authority in CREATING the “citizen* of the United States****” (federal corporation and not geography) not found in I.R.C. Section 1, which does not even MENTION the parties the tax is imposed on directly, because all the parties it is imposed on in the regulation are VOLUNTEERS who work for the Secretary.
  2. Give the straw man a name that is confusingly similar to the one in the Fourteenth Amendment, but depends on a DIFFERENT “United States”, the corporation instead of the CONSTITUTIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL “United States***”
  3. Through equivocation, fool Americans in the states into believing that “United States” in its LEGAL/CORPORATE sense is the same as “United States” in its constitutional or geographical sense.
  4. Now they could satisfy the above case and not be accused by the courts of “an extortion” in implementing the income tax within states of the Union, because:
    4.1. The domicile of the STRAW MAN “citizen* of the United States****” (federal corporation) is separate and distinct from the human being who has been DUPED to volunteer for the office in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction within the constitutional states.
    4.2. All legislation imposing duties on the straw man would be a lawful regulation of government property under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 as a “privilege tax” and not really an income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment.
  5. Never actually instituting a liability statute because everyone who is a “national of the United States***” who volunteers for the “taxpayer” office has surrendered the protections of the constitution in exchange for franchise privileges and therefore is no longer protected by ANY PART of the constitution, INCLUDING the Sixteenth Amendment.
  6. Since the Sixteenth Amendment limits income taxation to “profit”, and those who volunteer for the OFFICE surrendered the protections of the constitution in doing so, then the tax can be instituted on GROSS RECEIPTS instead of only PROFIT. And it isn’t a direct tax, because the constitution is irrelevant to those who volunteer and exchange PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS for STATUTORY PRIVILEGES.
  7. To ensure that people in states of the Union were INCENTIVIZED to volunteer and thereby become DOMESTIC, they added lots of “bait” to trap them like animals over time, all of which essentially amounts to a BRIBE to give up PRIVATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS in exchange for CIVIL STATUTORY PRIVILEGES. This in effect makes the people in government who did this into PREDATORS rather than PROTECTORS, and in violation of their constitutional oath, whose main purposes is to PROTECT private property.
  8. They had to GAG the courts from exposing any of the above by FORBIDDING them from engaging in declaratory judgments in 28 U.S.C. §2201(a). Thus, their SECRET would never enter the public record so the HOSTAGES in the states of the Union victimized by their criminal identity theft could never learn how to escape.
  9. Creating a criminal financial conflict of interest in the judges, starting in 1917, by making the judges “taxpayers”. 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455. Making the Judges TAXPAYERS ensured that they would never acquit people who didn’t want to volunteer, because it would reduce their pay and benefits by reducing national revenues. See:
    Meta AI: Social Security cannot be offered in a constitutional state, SEDM
    https://sedm.org/meta-ai-social-security-cannot-be-offered-in-a-constitutional-state/

Proof that this “citizen* of the United States****” straw man is how they did it is found in the following:

“In a legal or narrower sense, the term “franchise” is more often used to designate a right or privilege conferred by law, [1]   and the view taken in a number of cases is that to be a franchise, the right possessed must be such as cannot be exercised without the express permission of the sovereign power [2]   –that is, a privilege or immunity of a public nature which cannot be legally exercised without legislative grant. [3]   It is a privilege conferred by government on an individual or a corporation to do that “which does not belong to the citizens [NATIONALS or “nationals of the United States” who are nonresident aliens] of the country generally by common right.” [4] For example, a right to lay rail or pipes, or to string wires or poles along a public street, is not an ordinary use which everyone may make of the streets, but is a special privilege, or franchise, to be granted for the accomplishment of public objects [5]  which, except for the grant, would be a trespass. [6]    In this connection, the term “franchise” has sometimes been construed as meaning a grant of a right to use public property, or at least the property over which the granting authority has control. [7]
[American Jurisprudence 2d, Franchises, §1: Definitions (1999)]


FOOTNOTES:

[1]  People ex rel. Fitz Henry v. Union Gas & E. Co. 254 Ill. 395, 98 N.E. 768; State ex rel. Bradford v. Western Irrigating Canal Co. 40 Kan 96, 19 P. 349; Milhau v. Sharp, 27 N.Y. 611; State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859; Ex parte Polite, 97 Tex Crim 320, 260 S.W. 1048.

The term “franchise” is generic, covering all the rights granted by the state.  Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L.Ed. 185.

A franchise is a contract with a sovereign authority by which the grantee is licensed to conduct a business of a quasi-governmental nature within a particular area.  West Coast Disposal Service, Inc. v. Smith (Fla App), 143 So.2d. 352.

[2] The term “franchise” is generic, covering all the rights granted by the state.  Atlantic & G. R. Co. v. Georgia, 98 U.S. 359, 25 L.Ed. 185.

A franchise is a contract with a sovereign authority by which the grantee is licensed to conduct a business of a quasi-governmental nature within a particular area.  West Coast Disposal Service, Inc. v. Smith (Fla App), 143 So.2d. 352.

[3]  State v. Real Estate Bank, 5 Ark. 595; Brooks v. State, 3 Boyce (Del) 1, 79 A. 790; Belleville v. Citizens’ Horse R. Co., 152 Ill. 171, 38 N.E. 584; State ex rel. Clapp v. Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. 40 Minn 213, 41 N.W. 1020.

[4] New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co., 115 U.S. 650, 29 L.Ed. 516, 6 S.Ct. 252; People’s Pass. R. Co. v. Memphis City R. Co., 10 Wall (US) 38, 19 L.Ed. 844; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet (U.S.) 519, 10 L.Ed. 274; Bank of California v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 P. 832; Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst (Del) 227, 14 A. 720, 32 A. 133; State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638, 86 A.L.R. 240; Lasher v. People, 183 Ill. 226, 55 N.E. 663; Inland Waterways Co. v. Louisville, 227 Ky. 376, 13 S.W.2d. 283; Lawrence v. Morgan’s L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 39 La.Ann. 427, 2 So. 69; Johnson v. Consolidated Gas E. L. & P. Co., 187 Md. 454, 50 A.2d. 918, 170 A.L.R. 709; Stoughton v. Baker, 4 Mass 522; Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Asso., (Mo App) 369 S.W.2d. 764; Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N.Y. 249, 72 N.E.2d. 697, 1 A.L.R.2d. 1160, cert den  332 U.S. 761, 92 L.Ed. 346, 68 S.Ct. 63; Shaw v. Asheville, 269 N.C. 90, 152 S.E.2d. 139; Victory Cab Co. v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d. 433; Henry v. Bartlesville Gas & Oil Co., 33 Okla 473, 126 P. 725; Elliott v. Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; State v. Scougal, 3 S.D. 55, 51 N.W. 858; Utah Light & Traction Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 101 Utah 99, 118 P.2d. 683.

A franchise represents the right and privilege of doing that which does not belong to citizens generally, irrespective of whether net profit accruing from the exercise of the right and privilege is retained by the franchise holder or is passed on to a state school or to political subdivisions of the state.  State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859.

Where all persons, including corporations, are prohibited from transacting a banking business unless authorized by law, the claim of a banking corporation to exercise the right to do a banking business is a claim to a franchise.  The right of banking under such a restraining act is a privilege or immunity by grant of the legislature, and the exercise of the right is the assertion of a grant from the legislature to exercise that privilege, and consequently it is the usurpation of a franchise unless it can be shown that the privilege has been granted by the legislature.  People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns (NY) 358.

[5] New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light & H. P. & Mfg. Co., 115 U.S. 650, 29 L.Ed. 516, 6 S.Ct. 252; People’s Pass. R. Co. v. Memphis City R. Co., 10 Wall (US) 38, 19 L.Ed. 844; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet (U.S.) 519,  10 L.Ed. 274; Bank of California v. San Francisco, 142 Cal. 276, 75 P. 832; Higgins v. Downward, 8 Houst (Del) 227, 14 A. 720, 32 A. 133; State ex rel. Watkins v. Fernandez, 106 Fla. 779, 143 So. 638,  86 A.L.R. 240; Lasher v. People, 183 Ill. 226, 55 N.E. 663; Inland Waterways Co. v. Louisville, 227 Ky. 376, 13 S.W.2d. 283; Lawrence v. Morgan’s L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 39 La.Ann. 427, 2 So. 69; Johnson v. Consolidated Gas E. L. & P. Co., 187 Md. 454, 50 A.2d. 918, 170 A.L.R. 709; Stoughton v. Baker, 4 Mass 522; Poplar Bluff v. Poplar Bluff Loan & Bldg. Asso. (Mo App) 369 S.W.2d. 764; Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club, 296 N.Y. 249, 72 N.E.2d. 697,  1 A.L.R.2d. 1160, cert den  332 U.S. 761,  92 L.Ed. 346,  68 S.Ct. 63; Shaw v. Asheville, 269 N.C. 90, 152 S.E.2d. 139; Victory Cab Co. v. Charlotte, 234 N.C. 572, 68 S.E.2d. 433; Henry v. Bartlesville Gas & Oil Co., 33 Okla 473, 126 P. 725; Elliott v. Eugene, 135 Or. 108, 294 P. 358; State ex rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co. 157 S.C. 1, 153 S.E. 537; State v. Scougal, 3 S.D. 55, 51 N.W. 858; Utah Light & Traction Co. v. Public Serv. Com., 101 Utah 99, 118 P.2d. 683.

A franchise represents the right and privilege of doing that which does not belong to citizens generally, irrespective of whether net profit accruing from the exercise of the right and privilege is retained by the franchise holder or is passed on to a state school or to political subdivisions of the state.  State ex rel. Williamson v. Garrison (Okla), 348 P.2d. 859.

Where all persons, including corporations, are prohibited from transacting a banking business unless authorized by law, the claim of a banking corporation to exercise the right to do a banking business is a claim to a franchise.  The right of banking under such a restraining act is a privilege or immunity by grant of the legislature, and the exercise of the right is the assertion of a grant from the legislature to exercise that privilege, and consequently it is the usurpation of a franchise unless it can be shown that the privilege has been granted by the legislature.  People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Utica Ins. Co., 15 Johns (NY) 358.

[6] People ex rel. Foley v. Stapleton, 98 Colo. 354, 56 P.2d. 931; People ex rel. Central Hudson Gas & E. Co. v. State Tax Com. 247 N.Y. 281, 160 N.E. 371, 57 A.L.R. 374; People v. State Tax Comrs. 174 N.Y. 417, 67 N.E. 69, affd  199 U.S. 1, 50 L.Ed. 65, 25 S.Ct. 705.

[7] Young v. Morehead, 314 Ky. 4, 233 S.W.2d. 978, holding that a contract to sell and deliver gas to a city into its distribution system at its corporate limits was not a franchise within the meaning of a constitutional provision requiring municipalities to advertise the sale of franchises and sell them to the highest bidder.

A contract between a county and a private corporation to construct a water transmission line to supply water to a county park, and giving the corporation the power to distribute water on its own lands, does not constitute a franchise.  Brandon v. County of Pinellas (Fla App), 141 So.2d. 278.

Black’s Law Dictionary REPEATS the above requirement that a franchise is “which does not belong to the citizens [NATIONALS or “nationals of the United States” who are nonresident aliens] of the country generally by common right.” under the definition of “privilege” as follows:

Privilege.  A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption.  A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1197]

2.1. Major Implementation steps

Every attempt to institute an income tax during this era relied on developing methods to volunteer, without describing them as such so as not to alert the participants. You see this obfuscation, for instance, in the definition of “effectively connected” in 26 U.S.C. §864(c) which describes how to IMPLEMENT “effectively connected” but not its PURPOSE.

  1. Replacing the GEOGRAPHICAL “United States**” with the CORPORATE “United States****”.
  2. Making the income tax a franchise tied to a federal office, instead of upon humans directly:
    2.1. If they didn’t do that, they would be limited to the Sixteenth Amendment tax on ONLY profit. That limitation now appears mainly in 26 U.S.C. §871(a) and everything else is PRIVILEGED earnings of a trade or business office subject to a graduated rate tax on GROSS RECEIPTS.
    2.2. Now that the “person” earning the income is their creation and their property, they can tax GROSS RECEIPTS of the office instead of only profit.
    2.3. Implementing the income tax as a voluntary franchise makes the OFFICE the “taxpayer” instead of the HUMAN voluntarily filling the office.
  3. Replacing POLITICAL/TERRITORIAL Citizens* under 8 U.S.C. §1401 or POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizens* under the Fourteenth Amendment as “taxpayers” with a PRIVILEGED FRANCHISE status and office WITHIN the United States**** corporation so that they falsely appear synonymous. See 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a). This was implemented with what is now called the “U.S. person” position. See:
    “U.S. Person” Position, Form #05.053
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/USPersonPosition.pdf
  4. Layering lots of ways into the tax code to MAKE ADDITIONAL nontaxable earnings TAXABLE through elections of the franchisee, such as:
    4.1. Creating Social Security and making it a PRIVILEGE rather than a RIGHT.
    Why You Aren’t Eligible for Social Security, Form #06.001
    https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/SSNotEligible.pdf
    4.2. Bundling income tax onto Social Security “wages” so that those who sign up for Social Security withholding ALSO become “taxpayers” under I.R.C. Subtitle A whether they want to be or not. This is “weaponization of government” and a violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine.
    4.3. Creating the “trade or business” excise taxable franchise. This appeared in the 1939 I.R.C., Section 48(d). See:
    The “Trade or Business” Scam, Form #05.001
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/TradeOrBusScam.pdf
    4.4. Implementing “trade or business” deductions under 26 U.S.C. §162 to encourage people to join the franchise, mostly because of MISUNDERSTANDINGS about the definition of “United States” that lead to falsely believing they have “income”. This happened in 1939 I.R.C. Section 23(a)(1) and was enacted in the Revenue Act of 1913.
    4.5. Creating the 1040-NR return for nonresident aliens because they had to recognize the right to not participate in the franchise. This was done eventually by splitting the 1040 in half, which at one time handled both CITIZENS and NONRESIDENT ALIENS. This happened in 1967.
    4.6. Implementing “effectively connecting” (DONATING) PRIVATE property to a public use to make it taxable in the case of nonresident aliens. 26 U.S.C. §864(c). This happened in I.R.C. Section 864(c), which was first introduced in 1966.
    4.7. Adding “benefits” and kickbacks to the code such as Recovery Rebates in 26 U.S.C. §642826 U.S.C. §6428B

Below is how we describe summarize all the above DIABOLICALLY NARCISSITIC tendencies NOT AUTHORIZED by the constitution:

The constitution does not EXPRESSLY authorize you to offer ANY of the above PRIVILEGES within the borders of a constitutional state. 

“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creator.”

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

[James Madison. House of Representatives, February 7, 1792, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties]

Thus, all such activities constitute an INVASION in violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution pursued for private, non-governmental, COMMERCIAL gain that benefits you personally in violation of 18 U.S.C. §208, 28 U.S.C. §144, and 28 U.S.C. §455.  That conflict of interest on your part in enforcing payment for any of the above privileges makes it impossible to follow the laws protecting private property in the Bill of Rights or to follow your oath of office faithfully and objectively in doing so.

[1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Form 1: Standard IRS Form 8275; https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf]

2.3. Detailed Chronology in perfecting the USPI Tax Model

This section breaks down the major pieces in the previous section into detailed specific chronological events. During this period the following transitions to the laws of property were slowly but steadily implemented:

  1. 1866: License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) declared first income tax unconstitutional. It was enacted in 1862 to fund the Civil War. This case famously held: “Congress cannot authorize a trade or business in a state in order to tax it.” Yet, even to this day, the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax behaves as an indirect excise tax on a “trade or business”.
  2. 1872: First income tax repealed. The office of Assessor was eliminated in 1872 after the Civil War. The people assess themselves by filing a return. 26 U.S.C. §6012.
  3. 1895: Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust declared attempt to institute the second income tax unconstitutional because it was a direct tax on property. Pollock properly averred their status as a nonresident alien.
  4. 1907: Ellis v. United States, 206 U.S. 246, 254-256 (1907); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14609257976025296442. SCOTUS declared that federal criminal law can be enforced extraterritorially so long as public property, including public contracts, are involved. As long as the income tax is a franchise or excise, and as long as those participating are officers of the government under the franchise contract, the criminal provisions of the I.R.C. can be enforced within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. Thus, “in the United States” means INSIDE the corporation as an officer or agent of that corporation, including a stockholder or a contractor. See:
    “in the United States”, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/in-the-united-states/
  5. 1909: Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112. Corporation Tax Act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This Court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The Act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself.  Flint v. Stone-Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107; McCoach v. Minehill Co., 228 U.S. 295; United States v. Whitridge, (decided at this term, ante, p. 144). Read Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913) for details on this act. Stratton’s held that the tax was an excise tax upon a franchise or privilege, and that the privileges was operating as a corporation.
  6. 1913: Sixteenth Amendment ratified. It expanded the definition of property, which originally meant real estate to include personal property as well.
  7. 1913: Federal Reserve Act, 38 Stat. 251, H.R. 7837, 12 U.S.C. §221 et. seq. enacted on Dec. 23, 1913 during Christmas recess with only SIX senators present, not forming a legitimate quorum. Click here for Wikipedia history.
  8. 1913: On February 25, 1913, the 16th Amendment officially became part of the Constitution, granting Congress constitutional authority to levy taxes on corporate and individual income. The Bureau of Internal Revenue established a Personal Income Tax Division and Correspondence Unit to answer a flood of questions about its enforcement, and a special division within General Counsel to prepare opinions interpreting internal revenue laws
  9. 1914: First 1040 tax form introduced. On January 5, 1914, the Treasury Department unveiled the four-page form (including instructions) for the new income tax. The form was numbered 1040 in the ordinary stream of numbering forms in sequential order. In the first year, no money was to be returned with the forms. Instead, each taxpayer’s calculations were verified by field agents, who sent out bills on June Tax payments were due by June 30.
  10. 1916: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1 (1916) acknowledged political citizens of a state of the Union as nonresident aliens.
  11. 1916: 1040 Form instructions acknowledge nonresident aliens.
  12. 1917: 1040 Form removes reference to nonresident aliens.
  13. 1920: 1040 Form adds question: “Are you a citizen or resident of the United States?”.
  14. 1924: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). Income tax declared WORLD WIDE in scope by ex president Taft serving as Supreme Court Justice. This was based on the 1921 filing of Cook in which he checked “Yes” to the question of whether he was a “citizen of the United States?”.
  15. 1926: FIRST version of the U.S. Code. Internal Revenue Code first codified as Title 26.
  16. 1933: FDR declares national emergency and banking holiday. Gold outlawed by FDR by executive order. Executive Orders can only affect people INSIDE the government (meaning “DOMESTIC”). They cannot affect the general public.
  17. 1935: Payroll Withholding. On August 14, 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Employees originally paid one percent of the first $3,000 of their salaries to finance the benefits. The law required a new system of tax withholding, which the Bureau of Internal Revenue had to collect and turn over to the Social Security Trust Fund. It also created an unemployment compensation program and laid the foundation for modern payroll withholding.
  18. 1935: Express licenses were eliminated. The SSN/TIN replaces these in 1935 with the Social Security Act. TINs aren’t called licenses, but they function as de facto licenses.
  19. 1939: Public Salary Tax Act, 53 Stat. 574, authorized STATUTORY “States” (territories) to tax public officers of the national government. It was never meaningfully codified, probably because it would violate the separation of powers. Click here to read the hearings.
  20. 1939: Internal Revenue Code of 1939 codified/published. It REPEALED all prior tax acts when codified. It was not published in the PUBLIC laws or the PRIVATE laws volumes of the Statutes at Large. Instead, it was published as a SEPARATE volume so you couldn’t tell if it was PUBLIC or PRIVATE.
  21. 1942: First year the 1040 form asks for the SSN. The Social Security Act was enacted in 1937, so it took 5 years to get that number on the tax return.
  22. 1942: W-2 implemented as part of the Victory Tax. This allowed people to volunteer to be treated “AS IF” they are government statutory “employees”. 26 U.S.C. §3402(p).
  23. 1953: Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) renamed to Internal Revenue Service (IRS).In 1952, President Harry S. Truman called for a comprehensive reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The agency officially became the Internal Revenue Service on July 9, 1953
  24. 1953: U.S. Supreme Court in Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624, 626, 73 S.Ct. 465, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953) authorized states to enforce state income tax on federal land, thus DESTROYING the separation of powers. This is treason. This case is the entire basis of state income tax. It is the ONLY reason that federal gross income can transfer to a state return in the case of nonresident aliens.
  25. 1954: Internal Revenue Code of 1954 codified published. It REMOVED the phrase “gains, profits, and” from the definition of “gross income” in I.R.C. Section 61. Compare Internal Revenue Code of 1939 Section 22(a) for proof. This created the false appearance that ALL EARNINGS, which are property and capital, are “income” in a Sixteenth Amendment or Constitutional Sense. See:
    Proof of Facts: Capital v. Income, Section 8
    https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-capital-v-income/#8._Congressional
  26. 1962: “U.S. person” added to the Internal Revenue Code. Public Law 87-834, 76 Stat. 988, Section 7(h).
  27. 1966: Tax Act of 1966 created the term “effectively connected” to allow NRAs to DONATE their nontaxable earnings to make them taxable.
  28. 1967: First year the 1040NR return is published.
  29. 1972: Public Law 92-580 for nonresident aliens that allowed for privileged deductions for the first time. That provision is now found in 26 U.S.C. §873 and identifies “nationals of the United States” as “nonresident alien individuals”.
  30. 1980: First use of “national of the United States” on the 1040NR return.
  31. 1984-2017: “U.S. national” replaces “national of the United States” on the 1040NR return. They did this so that they could create the false appearance that only 8 U.S.C. §1408, and 8 U.S.C. §1452 “U.S. nationals” from possessions and territories can claim NRA status, even though Fourteenth Amendment citizens can also.
  32. 1986: 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h) added to allow nonresident aliens married to “U.S. persons” to ELECT to be treated as “U.S. persons”.
  33. 1986: Internal Revenue Code of 1986 codified/published.
  34. 1991: IRS introduced Electronic Filing.
  35. 1998: IRS Restructuring and Reform Act
  36. 2016: IRS launched the Online account.
  37. 2018: “U.S. national” removed from the 1040NR form.
  38. 2019: Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edition published a new version in which “U.S. citizens” are acknowledged as “U.S. nationals”. See:
    Black’s Law Dictionary Capitulates with Us and Defines “U.S. Citizen” as a “national”!, SEDM
    https://sedm.org/blacks-law-dictionary-capitulates-with-us-and-defines-u-s-citizen-as-a-national/
  39. 2024: Instructions for the 1040NR recognize CITIZENS as “U.S. nationals” FOR THE FIRST TIME. See:
    IRS Acknowledges Constitutional Citizens as U.S. Nationals in the 1040-NR Instructions for 2023, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/irs-acknowledges-constitutional-citizens-as-u-s-nationals-in-the-1040-nr-instructions-for-2023/

2.2. Current Design of the USPI Tax Model

The USPI system is based on consent and property as follows:

  1. The income tax is transformed into a Private Membership Association (PMA) or club you have to volunteer for. Government ID is how you join, and the requirement to provide an SSN to get ID becomes a license to operate as a government agent or officer.
  2. Liability statutes are eliminated and replaced with the laws of property.
    2.1. 26 U.S.C. §6012 implements the common law requirement to return property of another in your custody so its not really a liability statute.
    2.2. 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 also is not an express liability and even it it was, it is limited to agents of the Secretary of the Treasury working in the Department of Treasury.
    2.3. Not using the word “liable for” in the tax act.
  3. Use the U.C.C. as a method to propose and establish consent. This began in the 1930’s during the dawn of the “Administrative State”. At that point, government became a Merchant offering “privileges” for fees called “income tax”.
  4. Hide or obfuscate the method of consent to join the club.
    4.1. Use “liable to” rather than “liable for”.
    4.2. Never actually define “effectively connected”, but only how to IMPLEMENT it. The purpose is clearly to DONATE private property to a public use.
    4.3. Never define the word “election”.
  5. Call people frivolous who don’t want to join. This is also called “gaslighting” in the psychology profession.
  6. Hide or outlaw ways to unvolunteer. For instance:
    6.1. Those making a USRPI “election” under the FIRPTA act in 26 U.S.C. §897 need the PERMISSION of the Secretary of Treasury.
    6.2. “nonresident alien” description in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) says what it ISN’T, and not what it IS. Thus, it is a “non-definition” and claiming this status therefore is an OPTING-OUT of being a “taxpayer” if it is also done so as to not be connected to a “trade or business”.
    6.3. Outlawing declaratory judgments that would allow courts to declare people “non-members”. See 28 U.S.C. §2201(a).
  7. Eliminate or prohibit terms to describe non-members. This includes:
    7.1. “nontaxpayer”.
    7.2. “non-person”.
  8. The tax is nongeographical, because Congress has jurisdiction over its property and its officers anywhere in the world.
  9. The tax functions as a RENTAL FEE on property and agents/officers of the national government, but they don’t expressly acknowledge the office. In that sense, Congress is just like Avis Rent-a-car and they run a “rent-an-ident” service. That identity is the status or office you volunteer for.
  10. Enforcement and distraint is limited to agents/officers of the government who volunteer and government property.
    10.1. Agents are are called “taxpayers”. The SSN/TIN is de facto license to be an agent or officer.
    10.2. Property of the national government is anything connected to the SSN/TIN franchise mark.
  11. Everything outside the government corporation is “foreign” and everything inside it is “domestic”.
  12. Financial institutions then become the PRIVATE volunteer recruiters to compel people to volunteer for an office by insisting on an SSN/TIN and a W-4 which are only mandatory for “U.S. person” agents/officers and government “employees” respectively.
  13. Never enacting the U.S. code statutes implementing the tax into positive law. This is done for both Title 26 and Title 42 per the legislative notes under 1 U.S.C. §204. Thus, the tax statutes become mere public policy rather than real law.
  14. Use the SSN/TIN as a de facto license to represent a position in the national government as a “member” but refusing to admit that is its real purpose. See:
    Social Security Administration “franchise” is the license number

3. Further historical research

  1. IRS History Timeline, IRS
    https://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/irs-history-timeline_march-2019.pdf
  2. PROOF OF FACTS: Why the government CAN’T AND WON’T RECOGNIZE PRIVATE OF FOREIGN and ONLY RECOGNIZES PUBLIC and DOMESTIC, FTSIG-how language us abused to avoid recognizing PRIVATE Fourteenth Amendment citizens in favor of PRIVILEGED CIVIL/DOMICILED territorial “citizens* of the United States****” (corporation). These tactics are implemented in the above chronology
    https://ftsig.org/proof-of-facts-why-the-government-cant-and-wont-recognize-private-of-foreign-and-only-recognizes-public-and-domestic/
  3. Derivations of Code Sections of the Internal Revenue Codes of 1939 and 1954, Litigation Tool #09.007 (OFFSITE LINK) -use this exhibit to trace the history of various I.R.C. code sections.
    https://sedm.org/Litigation/09-Reference/DerivOfCodeSectOfIRC.pdf
  4. Prior Year Products, IRS. Goes back to 1913
    https://www.irs.gov/prior-year-forms-and-instructions
  5. Historical Federal Income Tax Acts, Family Guardian
    https://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/HistoricalActs/HistFedIncTaxActs.htm
  6. Great IRS Hoax, Form #11.302, Section 6: History of Federal Income Tax Fraud, Racketeering, and Extortion in the USA
    https://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm
  7. History-Family Guardian Fellowship
    https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/FormsInstr-History.htm