USPI thru Changing YOUR status to DOMESTIC

1. Overview

For the purposes of this website, “domestic” is equivalent to PUBLIC. To say that someone has elected a DOMESTIC status is to say that they have ASKED for the privileges associated with a CIVIL STATUTORY status legislatively created and owned by Congress as public property. Congress literally owns everything they legislatively create. The act of LEGISLATIVELY CREATING a civil statutory status occurs in the definition section of civil statutes. For instance, the term “citizen**+D of the United States**” or “resident of the United States**” identified in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) are civil statutory statuses (roles or positions) created by Congress and therefore PROPERTY of Congress. These statuses also constitute legal evidence of some specific type of CIVIL membership that also causes a LOSS of PRIVATE rights, as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court:

When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights or privileges which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain. “A body politic,” as aptly defined in the preamble of the Constitution of Massachusetts, “is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good.” This does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively private, Thorpe v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 143; but it does authorize the establishment of laws requiring each citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. This is the very essence of government, and 125*125 has found expression in the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non lædas. From this source come the police powers, which, as was said by Mr. Chief Justice Taney in the License Cases, 5 How. 583, “are nothing more or less than the powers of government inherent in every sovereignty, . . . that is to say, . . . the power to govern men and things.” Under these powers the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good. In their exercise it has been customary in England from time immemorial, and in this country from its first colonization, to regulate ferries, common carriers, hackmen, bakers, millers, wharfingers, innkeepers, &c., and in so doing to fix a maximum of charge to be made for services rendered, accommodations furnished, and articles sold. To this day, statutes are to be found in many of the States upon some or all these subjects; and we think it has never yet been successfully contended that such legislation came within any of the constitutional prohibitions against interference with private property. With the Fifth Amendment in force, Congress, in 1820, conferred power upon the city of Washington “to regulate . . . the rates of wharfage at private wharves, . . . the sweeping of chimneys, and to fix the rates of fees therefor, . . . and the weight and quality of bread,” 3 Stat. 587, sect. 7; and, in 1848, “to make all necessary regulations respecting hackney carriages and the rates of fare of the same, and the rates of hauling by cartmen, wagoners, carmen, and draymen, and the rates of commission of auctioneers,” 9 id. 224, sect. 2.

From this it is apparent that, down to the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was not supposed that statutes regulating the use, or even the price of the use, of private property necessarily deprived an owner of his property without due process of law. Under some circumstances they may, but not under all. The amendment does not change the law in this particular: it simply prevents the States from doing that which will operate as such a deprivation.

[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 124-125 (1877);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]

The PRIVILEGES (PUBLIC rights) attached to the civil statutory term defined that are enforced by the courts constitute PUBLIC PROPERTY in a legal sense.

“Enjoyment of the privileges of residence [LEGAL presence, not PHYSICAL presence] within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its [CIVIL] laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50.“

[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]]

All PUBLIC PRIVILEGES and PRIVATE RIGHTS are property. The receipt or even ELIGIBILITY to receive PUBLIC PRIVILEGES (PUBLIC RIGHS) gives rise to an equitable, quid pro quo, quantum meruit obligation to PAY for the delivery of the privileges with CIVIL obligations that are also property. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged this concept when they said:

“We have repeatedly held that the Federal Government may impose appropriate conditions on the use of federal property or privileges and may require that state instrumentalities comply with conditions that are reasonably related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs. See, e. g., Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 294 -296 (1958); Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 142 -144 (1947); United States v. San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); cf. National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 853 (1976); Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542 (1975). A requirement that States, like all other users, pay a portion of the costs of the benefits they enjoy from federal programs is surely permissible since it is closely related to the [435 U.S. 444, 462] federal interest in recovering costs from those who benefit and since it effects no greater interference with state sovereignty than do the restrictions which this Court has approved.”

[Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461-462 (1978); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16842193024599209893]

Notice in the above that the terms “FEDERAL PROPERTY” and “PRIVILEGES” are used synonymously and interchangeably. PRIVILEGES (PUBLIC rights) and the CIVIL STATUTORY obligations that actually PAY for those PRIVILEGES and make them POSSIBLE are therefore two sides of the SAME coin. Both attach to the SAME and EVERY civil statutory status. Pursuing LEGISLATIVELY created PRIVILEGES necessarily also implies IMPLIED consent to the CIVIL obligations that PAY FOR the PRIVILEGES. That consent is sometimes called “tacit procuration”, “invisible consent”, and “sub silentio”. Below is a summary of the methods by which you lose your PRIVATE rights by pursuing PUBLIC rights, PUBLIC property, PUBLIC privileges, or ANY CIVIL STATUTORY PUBLIC STATUS, including but not limited to “citizen of the United States”, “resident of the United States”, or “U.S. person”.

How You Lose Constitutional or Natural Rights, Form #10.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/HowLoseConstOrNatRights.pdf

Thus, the person electing or invoking ANY civil statutory status is pursuing public property and “benefits” which then gives rise to the power to regulate and tax the beneficiary of those privileges by the national government. Among those privileges is DOMICILE itself.

Both state and federal income tax are based upon a change in your civil status from PRIVATE to PUBLIC. However, each accomplishes this change differently. The following sections will break down the approach to income taxation between state and federal as far as how the change in your civil status is accomplished.

2. State Income Tax

As pointed out at the end of the previous section, CIVIL DOMICILE is a taxable privilege. State income taxation is based entirely upon CIVIL DOMICILE as pointed out in the following U.S. Supreme Court case.

Appellant, a citizen and resident of Mississippi, brought the present suit to set aside the assessment of a tax upon so much of his net income for 1929 as arose from the construction by him of public highways in the State of Tennessee. The taxing statute was challenged on the ground that in so far as it imposes a tax on income derived wholly from activities carried on outside the state, it deprived appellant of property without due process of law, and that in exempting corporations, which were his competitors, from a tax on income derived from like activities carried on outside the state, it denied to him the equal protection of the laws.

The obligation of one domiciled within a state to pay taxes there, arises from unilateral action of the state government in the exercise of the most plenary of sovereign powers, that to raise revenue to defray the expenses of government and to distribute its burdens equably among those who enjoy its benefits. Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation. Enjoyment of the privileges of residence within the state, and the attendant right to invoke the protection of its laws, are inseparable from the responsibility for sharing the costs of government. See Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, 245 U.S. 54, 58; Maguire v. Trefry, 253 U.S. 12, 14, 17; Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 498; Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 50. The Federal Constitution imposes on the states no particular modes of taxation, and apart from the specific grant to the federal government of the exclusive 280*280 power to levy certain limited classes of taxes and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, it leaves the states unrestricted in their power to tax those domiciled within them, so long as the tax imposed is upon property within the state or on privileges enjoyed there, and is not so palpably arbitrary or unreasonable as to infringe the Fourteenth Amendment. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra.

Taxation at the place of domicile of tangibles located elsewhere has been thought to be beyond the jurisdiction of the state, Union Refrigerator Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194; Frick v. Pennsylvania, 268 U.S. 473, 488-489; but considerations applicable to ownership of physical objects located outside the taxing jurisdiction, which have led to that conclusion, are obviously inapplicable to the taxation of intangibles at the place of domicile or of privileges which may be enjoyed there. See Foreign Held Bond Case, 15 Wall. 300, 319; Frick v. Pennsylvania, supra, p. 494. And the taxation of both by the state of the domicile has been uniformly upheld. Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, supra; Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co. v. Louisville, supra; Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1; Maguire v. Trefry, supra; compare Farmers Loan & Trust Co. v. Minnesota, 280 U.S. 204; First National Bank v. Maine, 284 U.S. 312.

[Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276, 279-280 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613]

Domicile is entirely voluntary and avoidable, and therefore being a “taxpayer” from the perspective of state income tax is therefore avoidable, as is pointed out in the following:

Why Domicile and Becoming and “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

Those with a domicile in a place are called “domiciliaries” and not “residents”. “Residents” in the Internal Revenue Code are always ALIENS. See 26 U.S.C. §7701(b), which is the Presence Test. The Presence test only applies to “alien individuals”, which means that all American Nationals are nonresidents EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD! This is confirmed by the definition of “residence” in 26 C.F.R. §1.871-2, which limits itself ONLY to aliens. Anyone in the IRS who asks for your “residence” address should receive be told:

“Only aliens can have a residence in the Internal Revenue Code and I’m not an alien. American Nationals are nonresidents everywhere in the world.”

Most tax forms derive your “domicile” from the “permanent address” field on the form. Technically, permanent address only pertains to “aliens”. If American Nationals fill that out, they are in effect making an ELECTION to be treated AS IF they are an “alien”. HORRIBLE idea! That is why our favorite tactic when filling out every government form that asks for a “permanent address” is to enter the following:

“NO DOMIICLE. Transient foreigner.”

Only by making an “election” can an American National therefore be “deemed LEGALLY but not PHYSICALLY present” within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. Chapter 97. By making such an election, they are “purposefully availing themselves” of commerce in a foreign jurisdiction and thus waiving sovereign immunity and volunteering to be subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. We cover this crucial fact in the Civil/Political Jurisdiction->Acquiring a “Civil Status” menu below:

Acquiring a “Civil Status”, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/civil-political-jurisdiction/acquiring-a-civil-status/

A complicating factor about state income tax is that most states of the Union incorporate the definitions in the Internal Revenue Code into their own revenue statutes. Thus:

1. If you are a “nonresident alien” for federal purposes, then you are usually a “nonresident” for state purposes as well.
2. Whatever your Federal Adjusted Gross Income is on your federal income tax return must be transferred directly onto your state return in many cases.

3. Federal Income Tax

Federal income tax is different. In the case of American Nationals, it is NOT based on domicile like state income tax, but rather exclusively upon on a civil status election that does not depend on your domicile. Granted, the civil status itself has a domicile all its own in the District of Columbia, but the human being or fictional entity electing the status has a domicile independent of the civil status.

1. The private human being who elects the status is called the public officer.
2. The status or position they elect or volunteer for is called the “office”.
3. The OFFICE and the OFFICER cannot become connected without either EXPRESS or IMPLIED consent in some form.
4. Once the OFFICE and the OFFICER become consensually connected, the OFFICER becomes legal surety for the OFFICE he or she represents as an AGENT. Since the Bible forbids surety, this is a HORRIBLE IDEA! See: Prov. 6:1-5, Prov. 11:15, Prov. 17:18.

Within the Internal Revenue Code, there are only TWO tax statuses a human being can ELECT have, each of which describes a different type of “membership” in the context of the Internal Revenue Code “trade or business” excise taxable franchise contract:

1. U.S. person under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).
   1.1. They file the 1040 tax return.
   1.2. This includes CIVIL STATUTORY “citizens**+D of the United States**” (geographical) and “residents of the United States**” (geographical), both of whom have in common an EFFECTIVE domicile within the statutory geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110(d).
   1.3. These people can be directly controlled, commanded, and regulated regardless of their physical location.
   1.4. They owe income tax on their WORLDWIDE earnings EVERYWHERE, regardless of their physical location.
   1.5. They are, in effect, a fiduciary custodian over a U.S. Property Interest (USPI) consisting of all the property attached to the office using the SSN/TIN franchise mark.
   1.6. Further information at:
   U.S. Person Position, Form #05.053
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/USPersonPosition.pdf
2. Nonresident alien under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B):
   2.1. They file the 1040NR tax return.
   2.2. Described as being NEITHER a civil statutory “citizens of the United States****” (legal, not geographical) and “residents of the United States**” (geographical).
   2.3. Also called a “foreign person” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1.
   2.4. This is the default status of people born within and domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state mentioned in the United States Constitution.
   2.5 No CIVIL statutory obligations attach directly to those with this status.
   2.6. Only their PROPERTY (Form #14.018) can be targeted for enforcement but never them personally, unless they commit perjury on a tax form.
   2.7. These people only owe tax on their earnings from the statutory geographical “United States” or which are VOLUNTARILY “effectively connected” with their earnings.
   2.8. This term is actually NOT a legal DEFINITION, but a DESCRIPTION, because it does not EXPRESSLY list ALL the things that are included.
   2.9. Further information at:
   Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.026
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf

Since “nonresident alien” is the default tax status of most Americans, they have to VOLUNTARILY ELECT a “U.S. person” tax status to be subject to the direct legislative supervision of Congress. This is typically done by filing a 1040 tax return rather than the more correct 1040NR form. There is NO LAWFUL authority provided to MAKE such an election in the case of anyone within the exclusive jurisdiction of a a constitutional state of the Union unless they are married to a CIVIL/DOMICILED “U.S. citizen” under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g). The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly authorized such an election ONLY in the case of Americans abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911. See Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924). No statute and no U.S. Supreme Court holding ever expressly authorized an American National born and domiciled within a constitutional state who is not married to a CIVIL/DOMIICLED “citizen**+D of the United States**” and not abroad to make such an election. People do it all the time to their great detriment, but there is no legal authority for doing so. That is discussed in the following article:

There is NO LAW that permits an American National as a Nonresident Alien to Elect to be a U.S. person if they are NOT married to one, SEDM
https://sedm.org/there-is-no-law-that-permits-an-american-national-as-a-nonresident-alien-to-elect-to-be-a-u-s-person-if-they-are-not-married-to-one/

The diagram below depicts the consequences of making a STATUS election to convert your status from PRIVATE and nonresident alien to PUBLIC and DOMESTIC. It derives from Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046:

The most OBVIOUS proof that American Nationals born and domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of constitutional states are “nonresident aliens” is found in 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3), which identifies “nationals of the United States” as “nonresident aliens” entitled to deductions. American Nationals born in the exclusive jurisdiction of constitutional states fall in the “national of the United States” category. In fact, you can’t get a passport WITHOUT being a “national of the United States under 22 C.F.R. §51.2.

So it isn’t one’s POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL status as a “citizen of the Untied States***” under the Fourteenth Amendment that is the origin of obligation to pay income tax. It is the effective VOLUNTARY DOMICILE and the ELECTIONS/CONSENT of said party instead. The method of consent and election is further described in:

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

Below is a diagram of the “U.S. person” election. “P” means political and “G” means geographical. This information is extracted from 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1:

The POLITICAL citizen referred to in the above diagram is an 8 U.S.C. §1401 POLITICAL/TERRITORIAL citizen*, not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen* of the United States**”. There is no express method provided in the Internal Revenue Code for a POLITICAL/CONSTITUTIONAL citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to make such an election but people do it anyway, mostly by mistake.

The prison house doors are WIDE OPEN with they key hanging out of the lock. Why are you still sitting in your tax prison cell? Legal ignorance and apathy can be the only remaining reason for doing so.

If you would like more proof that American Nationals from states of the Union are “nonresident aliens”, see:

Proof that American Nationals are Nonresident Aliens, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ProofAnNRA.pdf