1. PROCEDURE:

1. File the 1040NR using the following method as a NONTAXPAYER:
   Attachment to 1040NR Return for U.S. national filing as a “Nontaxpayer” and Private Party, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/attachment-to-1040nr-return-for-us-national-filing-as-a-nontaxpayer/
2. Check the status of your refund with IRS Online:
   2.1. IRS Online
   https://www.id.me/government/?utm_campaign=B2C&utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=web&utm_content=carousel-card#federal-ola
   2.2. Document Upload Tool
   https://www.irs.gov/help/irs-document-upload-tool
   2.3. Your Online Account
   https://www.irs.gov/payments/your-online-account
3. Call the IRS if your processing gets held up.
4. If they don’t process your return, file a claim for refund under the Tucker Act within 3 years per 26 U.S.C. §6511. You can file the claim as soon as 6 months have passed from the time the return was filed.
   4.1. Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. §1491: Claims exceeding $10,000.
   4.2. Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2): Claims up to $10,000.

2. AUTHORITIES:

1. 26 U.S.C. §7422: Civil Actions for Refund
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7422
2. 26 U.S.C. §6511: Limitations on credit or refund
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6511
3. 28 U.S.C. §1491: Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee Valley Authority
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
4. Tucker Act, 18 U.S.C. §1491: Claims exceeding $10,000
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1491
5. Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2): Claims up to $10,000
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1346
6. 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c)-authority to file for refund by nonresident alien U.S. national whose earnings are excluded.
   https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.6012-1

3. FORMS:

1. 1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
   https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf
2. Procedure to File, Form #09.075** (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/procedure-to-file-tax-returns-form-09-075/
3. How to File Returns, Form #09.074** (Member Subscriptions)
   https://sedm.org/product/filing-returns-form-09-074/

4. BACKGROUND:

The 1040NR filing procedure on this site:

1. Does not take the “taxpayer” route. 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c) is not a statutory remedy but a common law exclusively regulatory remedy. It’s provisions are not found in 26 U.S.C. §6012 that it implements.
2. Is very common among aliens abroad who are victims of false information returns. There are probably way more aliens abroad who use our procedure than U.S. nationals at home.

DO NOT sue under 26 U.S.C. 7422, because that is a “taxpayer” suit.

4.1. Why 26 U.S.C. §7422 refund suits inherently risk PUB‑capacityPUB activation

FTSIG’s architecture treats Subtitle A as a public franchise. A §7422 suit is a statutory remedy inside that franchise. That means:

• §7422 is a PUB‑only remedy. It exists only for “taxpayers,” which FTSIG defines as public‑capacityPUB franchise participants, not private‑capacityPRI nationals.
• To use §7422, the court must treat the filer as:
  • a statutory person,
  • with a statutory liability,
  • seeking a statutory refund.

Under FTSIG axioms, those three elements cannot attach to private‑capacityPRI without invisible consent or identity laundering.

Thus, even if the claim for refund was filed in private‑capacityPRI, the moment you invoke §7422, the court must classify you as a “taxpayer”, which is public‑capacityPUB by definition.

Conclusion: §7422 litigation is structurally PUB‑capacityPUB, even if the underlying refund claim was PRI‑capacityPRI. The act of suing under §7422 is what triggers PUB, not the filing of the refund claim itself.

4.2. Why the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1)) avoids PUB‑capacityPUB conversion

FTSIG’s own litigation guidance explicitly directs private‑capacityPRI filers toward Court of Federal Claims refund actions under the Tucker Act, not §7422.

Reason:

✔ 4.2.1 Tucker Act is capacity‑neutral

The Tucker Act is a jurisdictional grant, not a statutory franchise remedy. It does not require the plaintiff to be a “taxpayer,” “person,” “resident,” or any other public‑capacityPUB office.

✔ 4.2.2 Tucker Act recognizes common‑law money‑had‑and‑received

FTSIG frames the refund as a private‑capacityPRI property reclamation, not a statutory refund. The Tucker Act allows suits for illegal exactions without requiring PUB‑capacityPUB identity.

✔ 4.2.3 Tucker Act does not require statutory status elections

No SSN/TIN franchise identity is required to invoke Tucker Act jurisdiction. No statutory “taxpayer” persona is needed.

✔ 4.2.4 Tucker Act aligns with FTSIG’s “private property → unlawful taking → restitution” model

FTSIG treats involuntary withholding as a taking of private propertyPRI. The Tucker Act is the only federal remedy that allows you to litigate a taking without stepping into a public franchise.

Conclusion: The Tucker Act is the only federal litigation path that does not require PUB‑capacityPUB identity.

4.3. Does filing a refund claim in private‑capacityPRI force PUB‑capacityPUB?

No. FTSIG is explicit: a properly structured 1040NR refund claim can be filed entirely in private‑capacityPRI without triggering PUB‑capacityPUB.

The risk arises only when choosing the litigation vehicle:

• Refund claim (administrative) → can remain PRI
• §7422 suit (statutory) → forces PUB
• Tucker Act suit (common‑law / illegal exaction) → remains PRI

4.4. The decisive doctrinal difference

§7422

• Requires “taxpayer” status → public‑capacityPUB
• Remedy exists only inside Subtitle F → public franchise
• Court must treat you as a statutory persona → identity laundering

Tucker Act

• Requires only “claim founded upon… money illegally exacted”
• No statutory persona required
• No franchise participation required
• Preserves private‑capacityPRI throughout

5. EQUITY JURISDICTION OVER TAX REFUND SUITS:

5.1. Introduction

An equity approach only applies to matters involving the proprietorial powers over public property and privileges dispensed to American nationals (U.S. nationals) who are NRA⁵⁰ or even abroad but not NRA^Aliens. Aliens not standing on land protected by the constitution come under under the Foreign Affairs functions of Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 as a Sovereign Power. See:

HOW TO: How to distinguish “sovereign power” from “proprietary power” in the context of taxation, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-how-to-distinguish-sovereign-power-from-proprietary-power-in-the-context-of-taxation/

A refund suit using our materials is undertaken within the following context. Our materials are intended only relevant to American national NRA⁵⁰ and never NRA^Aliens:

6. CHOICE OF LAW AND TERMS OF COMMERCIAL USE OF  MY PROPERTY AND IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

1. This claim is brought under Article III and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) and not the I.R.C, seeking recovery of amounts alleged to have been improperly assessed, collected, or paid to you. This petition is submitted in a purely private capacity, invoking rights and remedies recognized under general common law and equity rather than under statutory civil public capacity provisions. The exclusions asserted herein re not claimed as civil privileges or exemptions “created or organized” under Article I, but as mandatory constitutional recognition of private capacity under Article III.  On that basis, this submission is not intended as a proprietary election to be treated as a “nonresident alien individual” under 26 U.S.C. §§873(b)(3), 864(b), or 6671(b).  Such an election is not necessary given that I can find no express liability statute for 1040NR filers under 26 U.S.C. §871. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence of an express liability.  I therefore assert that no civil statutory civil penalties or limitation periods may lawfully apply to this submission or any private capacity activity.

2. Accordingly, this action is brought as an illegal‑exaction claim seeking return of private funds collected under statutory provisions that do not apply to my circumstances. It is not a request for deductions, exemptions, or other statutory benefits available only to those who voluntarily elect public capacity within the proprietary authority established under Subtitle A pursuant to Congress’ proprietary Sixteenth Amendment powers. I do not dispute Congress’ sovereign power to rent public capacities it legislatively creates as public property for a free, call that fee a “tax”, or even do so without real consideration, but only to the extent that I can do the same thing to them with my private property and identity.  They cannot lawfully force those public capacities upon unwilling private capacity victims who enjoy constitutional protections like me without express, informed, and voluntary consent not evident in this case, however, without running afoul of the First, Fifth, and Thirteenth Amendments, and the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine, and committing identity theft and false personation.

3. If the bureau believes I remain in custody, use, or benefit of any proprietary public property, civil statutory status, or privilege that I both asked for and received that would trigger CIVIL regulatory or taxing jurisdiction (United StatesJ in 26 U.S.C. §864(b)), I respectfully request court admissible evidence of same signed under penalty of perjury as required by 26 U.S.C. §6065 and the Benefit Protection Equivalence Doctrine so that any such interest or value may be formally disproved with evidence or entirely returned immediately.  I am therefore literally asking you to do your only legitimate job as a real government under the constitution:  Protecting private property by keeping it separate from public property and never allowing it to mix with public property.  If you won’t do that, I question why I should hire you with taxes to protect me from anyone else. Absent said proof, ownership over myself and my property in private capacity is absolute and I hereby exercise the right to exclude and the right to exercise any method of control over that property in your wrongful custody that I choose.

4. All disclosures or commercially beneficial uses of my identifying information or private property in your wrongful possession or anyone you give it to are unauthorized beyond this direct interaction, and I reserve all rights regarding any unauthorized commercial use of my identifying information.  You agree to pay any amount I specify in return for all said unauthorized commercial uses or abuses if my property is not returned immediately.

5. Amounts reported and received by the United States have been falsely characterized as proprietary “tax” and “withholding” by the payer and are claimed for refund. Any of my absolutely owned property in your wrongful custody that is not returned as requested herein constitutes consideration beyond that point which gives rise to an equitable obligation to repay double the amount compounding every year and all legal fees and labor needed to recover it. This correspondence constitutes notice of said terms as the owner of the private property in your wrongful custody, if any.  To the extent my private property in your unauthorized, wrongful, and unlawful custody is not promptly returned as requested, this correspondence shall also serve as ACCEPTANCE of said terms. 

Statement for Administrative Record in the Event you ignore, refuse, or attempt to penalize this filing

In the event of a legal dispute over the equitable refund claimed herein, supporting materials are available upon request and may be incorporated into the administrative record as appropriate.  This submission is made in good faith with full reservation of constitutional rights. It satisfies the Beard Test criteria for a valid return and may not be penalized, ignored, or interfered with.  26 U.S.C. §7203 (failure to file) may be invoked if it is.  The agency’s jurisdiction arises from the public‑rights doctrine and from government‑created PUBLIC property interests, including civil statutory status, public capacity, definitions, or remedies “created or organized” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(4) and therefore “domestic”. Any presumption or equivocation that places me in a public capacity involuntarily raises constitutional due‑process concerns. I do not consent to waive constitutional due process or the Federal Rules of Evidence through any public‑capacity election and reject all attempts to compel said election as a constitutional tort under the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine.

Caselaw arising from circumstances involving elected public capacities, voluntary participation in civil statutory franchises, or parties other than nonresident aliens not engaged in a trade or business is inapposite to my situation and may not be cited in response.  Ensure that the facts in every case you cite EXACTLY match my circumstances or the case will be ignored as moot .

Pursuant to the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B, my religion requires me to reject every benefit, privilege, domestic (INTERNAL) civil statutory status, public capacity, definition, or remedy “created or organized” under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(4). My only civil statutory “creator and organizer” and civil “lawgiver” is God and His laws, not any government of men. Being compelled to recognize, elect, or become involuntary surety for public capacities created or organized by any other civil statutory lawgiver violates my sincerely held religious beliefs, biblical delegation order, and covenantal duties as God’s trustee.

 Since no public capacity privilege or “individual” status has been elected, 26 C.F.R. § 1.6012‑1(b)(1)(i) does not apply to private capacity parties and is merely directory in nature in my private capacity case. I also do not meet the regulatory definition of the alien “individual” subject to withholding under 26 C.F.R. § 1.1441‑1(c)(3), nor do I voluntarily engage in proprietary privileged activities treated as a “trade or business” or “effectively connected” for federal tax purposes. My understanding is these statutory terms reflect Congress’ exercise of proprietary authority over public civil capacities and activities “created or organized” under proprietary powers in the Sixteenth Amendment, not over private capacity sovereign taxation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.

Lastly, I am compelled to take the above approach because IRS guidance prohibits nominee relationships, and a statutory public capacity functions as a nominee for the human being. All determinations involving public capacities (“taxpayer”, “person”, “U.S. person”) require legal conclusions. I do not consent to make and am not authorized to make legal conclusions, and doing so would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Any perjury statement provided validates only facts I add to existing government forms, and not information preexisting on the form or its factual connection to me or my circumstances.  A perjury statement cannot validate legal conclusions, and nearly all entries on IRS forms relate to legal conclusions about statutory public capacity rather than private factual or evidentiary events that involve physical human beings. Ministerial officers may not rely on my perjury statement to validate legal conclusions, public capacities, or may they make legal conclusions of their own, act as fact witnesses, or turn my legal conclusions into facts.  This provision ensures these limits are not violated.

[1040-NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 6, Form 1: Short Custom 1040NR Attachment
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf]

The above implements and ensures the following choice of law for all refund proceedings involving the use of our materials:

Choice of Law, Litigation Tool #01.010
https://sedm.org/Litigation/01-General/ChoiceOfLaw.pdf

A refund lawsuit or tax return using the procedures on this website is equitable rather than statutory because:

1. The terms on the forms are confined to their private context.
2. The 1040-NR identifies the filer as foreign and a “transient foreigner” but not a “foreign person”.
3. The petitioner files as a “nontaxpayer” not subject by avoiding all privileges. They never make the unprovable claim that they ARE NOT a “taxpayer”. See:
   Taxpayer v. Nontaxpayer, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/introduction/taxpayer-v-nontaxpayer/
4. Since the petitioner is a non-privileged American national standing on land protected by the Constitution, they have standing to claim the protections against direct taxes on “gross receipts” that the income tax would be because they are not engaged in privileged activities.
5. The statutes don’t impose duties or define “gross income” for American nationals (U.S. nationals) filing as nonresident aliens who don’t VOLUNTEER to make an “effectively connected” election.
6. All privileges/obligations that might give rise to civil statutory jurisdiction are waived. That is what REFUSING the “effectively connected” election does, in fact.
7. All earnings on the tax return are “excluded” and the only thing a “nontaxpayer” can have is “excluded payments”. See:
   Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf
8. The regulation invoked for the refund 26 C.F.R. §1.6012-1(b)(1)(i)(c) recognizes the right to claim an equitable refund by mentioning “excluded” income in 26 U.S.C. §872. That audience is NOT mentioned in 26 U.S.C. §6012 but is added in the case of NRA⁵⁰ U.S. nationals to accommodate the requirements of common law and equity.
9. The Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and the Public Rights Doctrine do not apply, because no statutory remedy or public property or privilege is invoked or involved.
10. Any judge who attempts to unilaterally change the status of the litigant from PRIVATE (political) to DOMESTIC (civil) is:
    10.1. Violating the First Amendment.
    10.2. Violating the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
    10.3. Violating the separation of powers by acting in a purely political rather than judicial capacity.

The SEDM Website provides additional resources for equity suits at:

HOT TOPICS: Common Law and Equity Litigation**, SEDM (Member Subscriptions)
https://sedm.org/common-law-litigation/

5.2. Subject of Equity Suit

The main subject of an equity suit on the subject of a refund in this case would be:

1. Did the United States provide consideration that was both asked for and received? This includes deductions in 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3). Without consideration, the ability to enforce an equitable obligation does not exist and there is no authority to CIVILLY tax or regulate. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877).

2. Did the United States EXPRESSLY reserve a public property^PUB interest in the consideration after it was received giving rise to United States^SMJ under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2? Without Constitutionally required reasonable notice of a reserved property^PUB interest prior to the payment, it would violate due process.

3. Does the reserved property^PUB interest apply to an American national (“U.S. national” under 22 C.F.R. §51.1 and 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(22)) in 26 U.S.C. §871(b) or only to an alien in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)? Social Security reservation is only for aliens in 26 U.S.C. §871(a)(3) and government payments or military pensions OTHER than Social Security are not mentioned.

4. Does the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine allow the United States to reserve a property^PUB interest to compel a kickback (tax)?

If the answer to any of the above is NO, the tax is unenforceable as a matter of law and not privilege.

5.3. Is the national government subject to equity jurisdiction?

Equity can reach the national government — but only in specific, carefully defined situations, and never as a blanket rule that “the federal government is always subject to equity.” The real picture is more structured and, honestly, more interesting.

Below is the clearest way to understand it without drifting into the claims made on the page you have open .

1. The United States is subject to equity — but only when Congress or the Constitution allows it

Federal courts inherited the traditional division between law and equity, and the United States can be sued in equity when:

A. Congress waives sovereign immunity

Examples:

• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) §702
• Quiet Title Act
• Tucker Act (for certain claims)

These statutes allow injunctions or declaratory relief against federal agencies or officers.

B. The Constitution requires a remedy

This is where the classic doctrines come in:

• Ex parte Young–type suits (prospective relief against officers violating federal law)
• Larson–Dugan ultra vires doctrine (officers acting beyond statutory authority can be enjoined)
• Non‑statutory review (courts can enjoin unconstitutional executive action even without a statute)

These are equitable remedies applied against federal officers, not against the United States as a sovereign defendant.

C. The United States sues in equity

When the federal government initiates litigation, it can invoke equitable remedies (injunctions, receiverships, specific performance, etc.). When it does so, courts may apply equitable defenses against it.

2. What equity does not do

Equity does not:

• eliminate sovereign immunity
• convert the federal government into a “private actor”
• place the United States under the same rules as a private merchant
• override statutes enacted by Congress

Equity is a judicial remedial system, not a jurisdictional override.

3. The key distinction:

Equity binds federal officers far more readily than the federal sovereign.

This is the heart of the Larson–Dugan line of cases:

• If an officer acts within statutory authority → sovereign immunity applies
• If an officer acts beyond statutory authority or unconstitutionally → equity can restrain them

This is why courts routinely issue:

• injunctions against federal agencies
• stays of agency rules
• orders compelling or prohibiting executive action

These are all equitable remedies, but they operate through the officer‑suit mechanism.

4. How this fits your sovereign/proprietary framework

You’ve been developing a model where:

• sovereign power = political authority
• proprietary power = commercial/civil capacity
• equity = internal mechanism protecting unalienable rights

Within mainstream doctrine, the closest alignment is:

• Equity restrains ultra vires or unconstitutional exercises of sovereign power
• Equity treats the government more like a private party when it acts in a proprietary or commercial capacity (e.g., Clearfield Doctrine)

So your instinct that equity “sits inside” the constitutional structure as a check on government power is consistent with how federal courts actually operate — just not in the sweeping way some advocacy sites describe.

5. Bottom line

Yes — the national government is subject to equity, but only through specific channels:

• statutory waivers
• constitutional officer‑suit doctrines
• ultra vires review
• proprietary/commercial actions

It is not a general, universal subjection to equity as if the federal government were simply another private litigant.

5.4. What Title 28 statutes permit equity suits?

You’re asking a clean, doctrinal question here: Which statutes in Title 28 expressly authorize federal courts to hear suits in equity? The answer is that Title 28 does not contain a single “equity jurisdiction statute.” Instead, it contains multiple, scattered grants of jurisdiction or waivers of sovereign immunity that permit federal courts to issue equitable relief.

Below is the structured map you’re looking for.

1. The foundational jurisdictional grant: 28 U.S.C. § 1331

§1331 — Federal Question Jurisdiction

This is the modern backbone. It gives district courts jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

Equitable remedies are available under §1331 unless Congress has withdrawn them.

This is the basis for:

• Ex parte Young–type injunctions
• Non‑statutory review of unconstitutional federal action
• APA-based injunctions

2. The historic equity grant: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity)

§1332 — Diversity Jurisdiction

This is not “about equity,” but it is one of the two original heads of jurisdiction (law and equity) inherited from the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Federal courts sitting in diversity may issue equitable remedies just as state courts could.

3. The officer‑suit statutes: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1651

These are the closest things to explicit equity‑enabling statutes.

§1361 — Mandamus against federal officers

Allows district courts to compel federal officers to perform nondiscretionary duties. Mandamus is historically an extraordinary equitable remedy.

§1651 — The All Writs Act

Authorizes federal courts to issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdiction, including:

• injunctions
• stays
• writs of prohibition
• writs of mandamus (when §1361 doesn’t apply)

This is a major equity‑supporting statute.

4. The sovereign‑immunity waivers that allow equitable suits

These statutes don’t grant jurisdiction; they permit suits for equitable relief by waiving immunity.

§702 of the Administrative Procedure Act (not in Title 28, but essential)

Allows suits seeking:

• injunctions
• declaratory judgments
• vacatur of agency action

28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) — Little Tucker Act

Allows certain non‑tort claims against the United States, including specific performance in limited contexts.

28 U.S.C. § 1491 — Tucker Act (Court of Federal Claims)

Allows some equitable relief incidental to monetary claims.

28 U.S.C. § 2410 — Quiet Title Act

Allows suits to quiet title against the United States — an equitable action.

28 U.S.C. § 2409a — Real property disputes

Another equity‑based waiver.

5. Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202)

This is not “equity” in the historical sense, but it is an equitable‑type remedy.

§2201 — Declaratory judgments

§2202 — Further necessary or proper relief

Federal courts may issue declarations and then enforce them with equitable remedies.

6. Habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2255)

Habeas is historically an equitable remedy. Title 28 contains the entire habeas framework.

7. Summary of the key Title 28 statutes that enable equity

Here’s the distilled list:

Statute	What it does	Equity relevance
§1331	Federal question jurisdiction	Allows equitable remedies unless withdrawn
§1332	Diversity jurisdiction	Federal courts sit with full equitable powers
§1361	Mandamus against federal officers	Classic equitable remedy
§1651	All Writs Act	Authorizes injunctions, stays, writs
§1346(a)(2)	Little Tucker Act	Some equitable relief
§1491	Tucker Act	Incidental equitable relief
§2410	Quiet Title Act	Equitable action against U.S.
§2409a	Real property disputes	Equitable relief
§2201–2202	Declaratory Judgment Act	Equitable‑type remedies
§2241–2255	Habeas corpus	Historically equitable

Bottom line

There is no single “equity jurisdiction statute” in Title 28. Instead, equity flows from:

1. General jurisdiction grants (especially §1331)
2. The All Writs Act (§1651)
3. Mandamus (§1361)
4. Declaratory Judgment Act (§§2201–2202)
5. Specific sovereign‑immunity waivers

Together, these form the modern architecture of federal equitable jurisdiction.