Index of State Income Tax Resources

1. Overview of Foreign Tax Status for States

1. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison indicated that states might collect federal taxes as AGENTS of the national government:
   “It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”
   [Federalist Paper #45, James Madison]
2. The above Federalist Paper 45 is the origin of the idea that “this State” in state revenue codes actually means a federal corporation acting as an AGENT of the national government BY CONSENT. This is also the same use put to the word “State” in the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1301, wherein even though “State” is defined there to include ONLY territories and possessions, Constitutional states in pursuing the privileges of that act must in effect CONSENT to act as federal territories. 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/
3. Those filing with a FEDERAL Foreign Tax Status must also file with a STATE Foreign Tax Status. By this we mean that if you filed a 1040-NR return, you must also file with the state using a NONRESIDENT form as well.
4. Most states use the same definitions as the Internal Revenue Code and actually INCORPORATE by reference the definitions in the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, the definitions have the same meaning such that if you file as a FEDERAL nonresident, you must also file as a STATE nonresident and transfer the SAME amounts on the FEDERAL return to the STATE return.
5. Most states define “State” or “this State” as federal territory within the exterior limits of the CONSTITUTIONAL state. See:
   Definitions of Corporate Federal “State” within State Revenue Codes, FTSIG
   https://ftsig.org/definitions-of-corporate-federal-state-within-state-revenue-codes/
6. Thus, those who don’t RESIDE in these federal areas or enclaves end up being a NONRESIDENT in relation to these areas and must file a NONRESIDENT state return.
7. The Separation of Powers Doctrine at the heart of the constitution FORBIDS state and federal jurisdiction to overlap. Thus, you can’t reside in a SINGLE location and be subject to STATE and FEDERAL law at the same time. For proof, see:
   Government Conspiracy to Destroy the Separation of Powers, Form #05.023
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SeparationOfPowers.pdf
8. Because of the separation of powers, you can’t simultaneously owe state and federal income tax at the same time. Its ONE or the OTHER. This is consistent with the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court held that income taxation is based SOLELY on DOMICILE, and you can only be domiciled in ONE physical place at a time. See:
   Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613
9. The state governments overcome the impossibility of overlapping FEDERAL and STATE jurisdictions by writing their tax codes so that all “taxpayers” will be treated AS IF they are “resident agents” representing an OFFICE domiciled on federal territory within the exterior limits of the state:
   9.1. We call this area the PLUNDER zone.
   9.2. It has NO protections of the constitution. Thus, there is NO private property there.
   9.3. These areas are usually called “federal enclaves” or “federal areas”.
10. For a breakdown of jurisdiction within federal enclaves, see:
    Geographical Definitions and Conventions, Form #11.215 (OFFSITE LINK) -the extend of federal jurisdiction within constitutional states
    https://sedm.org/SampleLetters/DefinitionsAndConventions.htm
11. Like the federal government, states also define “domestic” as essentially INSIDE the state government, rather than inside any geography. So its a mirror of the federal system. This is a good reason why if you file as a FEDERAL nonresident, you must also file as a STATE nonresident.
12. This sort of chicanery has been happening for a long time.
    10.1. Original state constitutions includes the exterior geographical boundaries of the states at the time the state joined the Union.
    10.2. Subsequently, most of the states have rewritten their constitution to REMOVE their geographical boundaries and thus collapse themselves into a PURELY corporate and virtual state not attached to any territory. This is the same CORPORATE scam as the feds have done.
    10.3. The most notable transition from physical to corporate started after the Civil War ended and states had to rewrite their constitutions when they rejoined the Union. In doing so, they removed their physical boundaries.
13. For a detailed discussion of all the above, see:
    State Income Taxes, Form #05.031 (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StateIncomeTax.pdf
    

2. How the Constitutional Separation of Powers between States and the National Government Was Broken Down

1. States of the Union defining “this State” in their revenue code as meaning federal areas within the exterior limits of the state, and treating everyone OUTSIDE these areas as being DOMICILED there.
2. The Public Salary Tax Act
   https://archive.org/details/1939-public-salary-tax-act-of-1939
3. By Supreme Court eliminating constraints of intergovernmental taxation mandated by separation of powers:
   South Carolina v. Baker, 485 US 505 (1988)
   Graves v. New York ex rel. O’Keefe, 306 US 466 (1939)
   The history of intergovernmental tax immunity is covered best in the following case:
   Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989)
4. Howard v. Commissioners, 344 U.S. 624, 626, 73 S.Ct. 465, 97 L.Ed. 617 (1953) is what authorized state income tax within federal enclaves.
   3.1 There is no actual LAW that allows this. Congress couldn’t pass such a law because it would violate the separation of powers.
   3.2 The U.S. Supreme Court did cite the Buck Act in this case, but this act does not apply to constitutional states because of the separation of powers.
   3.3 The ruling in Howard, however VIOLATED the rules of statutory construction:“
   
   Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d. 1097, 1100.Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.”
   [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 581]
   
   “When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning.  Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, `a definition which declares what a term “means” . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated'”); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U.S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N.J., 294 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction § 47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases). That is to say, the statute, read “as a whole,” post at 998 [530 U.S. 943] (THOMAS, J., dissenting), leads the reader to a definition. That definition does not include the Attorney General’s restriction — “the child up to the head.” Its words, “substantial portion,” indicate the contrary.” 
   [Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000)]
   
   3.4 By violating the rules of statutory construction in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect “legislated from the bench” by adding things to the definition of “State” in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) that do not expressly appear, and thus CONFLATED “federal enclaves” with “federal areas” mentioned in the Buck Act, 4 U.S.C.  §§105-110. Thus, it violated the separation of powers by in effect “legislating from the bench”, and in so doing, also violated the separation of powers between the states and the national government. THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTED TREASON IN THIS CASE, PUNISHABLE BY DEATH according to 18 U.S.C. §2381!
   3.5 On the subject of U.S. Supreme Court TREASON in expanding the definition of “State” found in 4 U.S.C. §110(d), the ChatGPT AI Chatbot said:
   
   QUESTION: In Howard, however, they completely glossed over the meaning of “State” in 4 U.S.C. §110(d), so they SILENTLY and by PRESUMPTION “legislated from the bench”.
   
   ANSWER: It is important to note that I am an AI language model and cannot provide real-time analysis of specific court cases or access case-specific details beyond what is available in publicly accessible sources up to September 2021. Consequently, I cannot delve into the specific details or reasoning of the Howard v. Commissioners case.
   
   However, I understand your concern regarding the interpretation of the term “State” in 4 U.S.C. §110(d) and the potential implications of the Court’s ruling in Howard v. Commissioners. In general, when courts interpret statutes, they aim to give effect to the intent of the legislature and consider the context and purpose of the law.
   
   While it is possible to argue that the Court’s interpretation in Howard v. Commissioners involved a broadening of the term “State” beyond its explicit statutory definition, it is ultimately the role of the judiciary to interpret laws and resolve legal disputes. Judicial interpretation can sometimes involve filling gaps or making inferences to ensure the law is applied appropriately in specific cases.
   
   If you have specific concerns or seek a more comprehensive analysis of the case, it would be advisable to consult legal experts or scholarly sources that have thoroughly examined the details and implications of Howard v. Commissioners. They can provide a more nuanced perspective on the court’s reasoning and the impact of the decision.
   
   Do you think a LEGAL EXPERT they recommend above whose livelihood and his next meal and Mercedes payment comes from MISREPRESENTING the law to expand his client base is going to be any less duplicitous than the U.S. Supreme court on this issue? NOT! It has NEVER been the proper role of ANY de jure judiciary to MALICIOUSLY destroy the separation of powers. The Supreme Court is now a DE FACTO institution (Form #05.043) because of what it did in this case.

3. Resources

1. State Income Taxes, Form #05.031 (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM. Free background on how state income tax works and its relation to federal income tax.
2. Geographical Definitions and Conventions, Form #11.215 (OFFSITE LINK) -the extend of federal jurisdiction within constitutional states
3. State Legal Resources (OFFSITE LINK)-Family Guardian
4. Legal Research Sources (OFFSITE LINK)- Family Guardian Website
5. State Response Letters (OFFSITE LINK) -SEDM
6. Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “State” (OFFSITE LINK) -Family Guardian Fellowship.
7. Test for State Tax Professionals, Form #03.010-send this to tax professionals and collection agents who assert that you have a liability
8. State Income Tax Resources (OFFSITE LINK)- Family Guardian
9. State Budget and Tax Publications-(OFFSITE LINK) by the National Conference of State Legislatures