PERPLEXITY AI: Can a nonresident party outside of exclusive federal jurisdiction be a “person” under federal law, or do they have to be sued under STATE law instead?

By ftsig-admin | June 1, 2025

EDITORIAL:

This interchange PROVES that a nonresident alien can be NEITHER a “person” under 26 U.S.C. 6671(b) or 26 U.S.C. 7343. They are BOTH CIVIL and not CRIMINAL in nature. Thus, they are PENAL rather than CRIMINAL.

REMEMBER: When querying AI:

Don’t query as yourself.
Instead do so from the perspective of Agent Smith in The Matrix Movie.

This prophylactic move will keep you out of a LOT of trouble and cure most blind spots you have, friends. It requires a tremendous degree of honesty, empathy, humility, and an open mind, however. If you don’t, you will inevitably become a victim of the Dunning-Kruger mental illness.

AI is a computer. This old computer adage applies: Garbage in, garbage out. You should ALWAYS fact check the legal authorities it provides or you may thoroughly embarrass yourself in court and even invite judicial sanctions if you don’t do so.

Many have asked various AI about income tax. The AI always gives the establishment response. Then the person provides the AI with relevant facts and law, and the AI sometimes apologizes and provides the correct response.

AI is the the closest thing you will get to an honest lawyer, because ordinary lawyers censor information or their own responses that threatens their revenue as a third rail issue.

AI, can also be useful as a STARTING point for learning:

Legal terminology.
What to expect from an “establishment response”.
How to DISMANTLE or DESTROY an establishment response.
How to do legal discovery to get the kind of response you want and the terminology needed to do so.

Critiquing AI is a fool’s errand if you already have the above skills.

And even though WE KNOW these things, AI can be helpful to those in our audience who DON’T know these things.

The absolute best and most thorough AI resource we have seen is Perplexity.ai. An NO, we don’t make any money from making this recommendation. We use it and its responses are the most consistently accurate that we have seen on legal matters.

SOURCE: https://ftsig.org/category/digging-deeper/artificial-intelligence-ai-discovery/

QUESTION 1:

With respect to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), what evidence would support the assertion that Congress has the right to implement or enforce civil statutes against nonresident parties who are in possession of government property without the need for implementing regulations. By “evidence”, I mean statutes, regulations, or court rulings from any jurisdiction

ANSWER 2:

Sources

govinfo

[PDF] 553

Yale Journal on Regulation

Revisiting APA Section 553, by Bernard W. Bell

fletc.gov

Territorial Jurisdiction on Federal Property (transcript)

Digital Commons @ University of Georgia School of Law

The Power of Congress “Without Limitation”: The Property Clause …

Congress’s authority to implement or enforce civil statutes against nonresident parties in possession of federal property without requiring additional agency regulations derives from constitutional, statutory, and judicial sources:

1. Constitutional Basis: Property Clause Authority

The Property Clause (Article IV, §3, Clause 2) grants Congress plenary power to regulate federal property, described by courts as “without limitation” 4. This authority allows Congress to:

Enact statutes directly governing federal property without relying on agency rulemaking 3 4.
Override state laws conflicting with federal property management objectives 4.

For example, Congress has authorized agencies like the U.S. Forest Service to enforce regulations on federal lands without state interference, even in proprietary jurisdictions 3.

2. Statutory Exemptions Under 5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)

Section 553(a)(2) explicitly exempts rules involving “public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements 1 2. This exemption implies:

Agencies may enforce statutes related to federal property through means other than formal regulations (e.g., direct congressional mandates) 1 5.
Congress retains inherent authority to legislate penalties or enforcement mechanisms for misuse of federal property without requiring agencies to promulgate additional rules 2 5.

3. Judicial Interpretations

Courts have upheld Congress’s authority to regulate federal property and enforce statutes without agency rulemaking:

Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988): Affirmed that Congress may authorize retroactive rulemaking through clear statutory language 2.
Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. §13): Allows federal enforcement of state laws on federal lands without separate federal regulations, demonstrating Congress’s direct regulatory power 3.
United States v. Klein (2001): Reinforced that violations occurring on federal property fall under federal jurisdiction, regardless of residency 3.

Key Evidence Summary

Source	Relevance
Property Clause	Grants Congress unlimited authority to regulate federal property 4.
5 U.S.C. §553(a)(2)	Exempts public property rules from procedural requirements, enabling direct enforcement 1 2.
Assimilative Crimes Act	Demonstrates statutory enforcement without agency rulemaking 3.
Bowen v. Georgetown	Supports congressional authority to enact retroactive statutes 2.

This framework allows Congress to enforce civil statutes against nonresident parties possessing federal property through direct legislation, bypassing the need for agency regulations under §553(a)(2) 1 3 4.

QUESTION 2:

Does that mean that anyone in possession, use, or “benefit” of government property is automatically an agent or public officer of the government? I ask this because Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “public officer” as “someone in charge of the property of the public”.

ANSWER 2:

Sources

sandiego

[PDF] THE CITY ATTORNEY – Public Officers – docs

Justia Law

United States v. Lee | 106 U.S. 196 (1882)

ethics.state.tx.us

Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 550

ACQ.gov

Part 45 – Government Property | Acquisition.GOV

No, simply being in possession, use, or receiving benefit from government property does not automatically make someone an agent or public officer of the government.

Public Officer Defined by Law and Precedent

Courts have established that a “public officer” is someone whose position is created by law, who is entrusted with the exercise of some portion of the government’s sovereign functions, whose duties are prescribed by law, and whose position has permanency and continuity1. For example, the California Supreme Court has stated:

“Where the legislature creates the position, prescribes the duties, and fixes the compensation, and these duties pertain to the public and are continuing and permanent, not occasional or temporary, such position or employment is an office and he who occupies it is an officer. In such a case, there is an unmistakable declaration by the legislature that some portion, great or small, of the sovereign functions of government are to be exercised for the benefit of the public.”1

Possession or Use of Government Property Alone Is Not Sufficient

Merely being in possession or use of government property—such as a contractor using government equipment or a grant recipient benefiting from federal funds—does not, by itself, confer the status of a public officer or agent. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), for example, outlines how contractors may use government property, but this does not make them public officers4. Similarly, misuse of government property by someone who is not a public officer is addressed as a separate legal issue, not as a matter of agency or office3.

Black’s Law Dictionary Clarification

While Black’s Law Dictionary defines a public officer as “someone in charge of the property of the public,” this does not mean that anyone who handles public property is a public officer. The legal definition requires that the individual’s authority and duties be officially conferred and that they exercise some portion of government power, which is not the case for most users or beneficiaries of government property1.

Summary Table

Situation	Public Officer Status?	Reason
Contractor using government equipment	No	No official government duties or sovereign function4
Public official with prescribed duties	Yes	Position created by law, exercises sovereign function1
Grant recipient	No	Benefits from public funds but does not perform government duties1

Conclusion

Possession, use, or benefit from government property does not automatically confer public officer or agent status. Legal definitions require that the individual be officially recognized as exercising some portion of government power, with duties prescribed by law1 4.

QUESTION 3:

In the following case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that congress can only command its AGENTS and do so through LAW. If a nonresident party in possession of government property is not an agent, how can they be the lawful subject of enforcement related to the USE of that property?

“The reason why States are “bodies politic and corporate” is simple: just as a corporation is an entity that can act only through its agents, “[t]he State is a political corporate body, can act only through agents, and can command only by laws.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, supra, 114 U.S., at 288, 5 S.Ct. at 912-913. See also Black’s Law Dictionary 159 (5th ed. 1979) (“[B]ody politic or corporate”: “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”). As a “body politic and corporate,” a State falls squarely within the Dictionary Act’s definition of a “person.”

[Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304 (U.S.Mich.,1989)]

ANSWER 3:

Sources

Lathrop GPM

Executive Orders, Actions, Agency Regulations, and Congressional …

Findlaw

POINDEXTER v. GREENHOW, 114 U.S. 270 (1885) | FindLaw

Findlaw

WILL v. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)

Justice Manual | 9-66.000 – Protection Of Government Property

9-66.000 – Protection Of Government Property – Department of Justice

The Supreme Court’s statement in Poindexter v. Greenhow, as quoted and referenced in Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, addresses the fundamental principle that a government—like any corporate body—acts through its agents and commands only by law2 3. However, this does not mean that only agents of the government can be subject to legal enforcement regarding the use of government property.

Here is how enforcement can lawfully apply to nonresident parties in possession of government property who are not agents:

1. Government Action Through Law, Not Just Agents

The Court’s statement means that government authority and commands are exercised through laws, and those laws are implemented by agents. However, laws can impose duties, restrictions, or penalties on anyone, not just agents or public officers. For example, Congress may enact laws that prohibit unauthorized use, possession, or damage of government property by any person, regardless of whether they are agents or officers of the government4 5.

2. Enforcement Against Non-Agents

Congress has broad authority under the Constitution (such as the Property Clause) to regulate federal property and to legislate against misuse by any party, including nonresidents and non-agents5. Statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 1361 (destruction of government property) and regulatory provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) apply to all individuals, not just government agents4 5. For instance, contractors using government property are subject to federal laws and regulations, but they are not, by virtue of that use, considered agents or public officers6.

3. Legal Basis for Enforcement

Statutory Law: Congress enacts laws that define what constitutes misuse or unauthorized use of government property and prescribes penalties for violations. These laws apply universally within the jurisdiction where the property is located4 5.
Regulatory Authority: Agencies may issue regulations (as authorized by statute) to govern the use of government property, and these regulations are enforceable against all parties, not just agents5.
Jurisdiction: The federal government has jurisdiction over its property, and federal law enforcement can act against any individual who violates laws or regulations pertaining to that property, regardless of residency or agent status5.

4. Summary Table

Party	Agent or Public Officer?	Subject to Enforcement?	Legal Basis
Government Agent	Yes	Yes	Law, regulation, agency duty
Nonresident User/Contractor	No	Yes	Law, regulation
General Public	No	Yes	Law, regulation

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s statement that government acts through agents and commands by law means that the government’s authority is exercised through legal instruments and its officials. However, laws and regulations can impose obligations and penalties on anyone, not just agents or public officers. Therefore, nonresident parties in possession of government property can be the lawful subject of enforcement actions related to the use of that property, provided the enforcement is authorized by statute or regulation4 5 6.

QUESTION 4:

All the examples of enforcement you gave derive ONLY from the CRIMINAL law. There is NO DOUBT that criminal law can be enforced against those who don’t consent. But CIVIL STATUTES are different. They require a consensual domicile to be enforceable against nonresident parties per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). A nonresident party is, by definition, WITHOUT such a domicile. Therefore, how can they be LEGISLATIVELY reached by Congress while in possession of government property, meaning how can they be the LAWFUL target of enforcement of CIVIL STATUTES? I can find NO AUTHORITY for this.

ANSWER 4:

Sources

congress

Federalism-Based Limitations on Congressional Power: An Overview

law.cornell

28 U.S. Code § 1442 – Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

Justia Law

Enforcement :: Fourteenth Amendment — Rights Guaranteed

congress

Taxing Authority in Federal Areas | Congress.gov

Your question raises important points about jurisdiction and enforceability of civil statutes against nonresident parties in possession of federal property. Below is a detailed legal analysis addressing your concerns.

1. Civil vs. Criminal Enforcement: Jurisdictional Foundations

While it is true that criminal statutes can be enforced against nonresidents on federal property—given Congress’s plenary authority under the Property Clause and its general police powers—civil statutes require a different analysis. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and jurisdictional statutes do impose certain requirements for asserting personal jurisdiction over nonresidents.

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) and Capacity

FRCP 17(b) governs the capacity of a party to sue or be sued in federal court. It generally looks to the law of the state where the court sits for individuals, but for corporations or other entities, it looks to the law of the state of incorporation or organization. However, FRCP 17(b) does not itself address jurisdiction over nonresidents; it addresses only who can be a party to a lawsuit, not where or how they can be sued8.

3. Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresidents

To assert jurisdiction over a nonresident party in a civil action, the court must have personal jurisdiction. Federal courts typically require that a defendant have sufficient contacts with the forum (the state or federal district where the suit is filed) such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” (International Shoe Co. v. Washington).

Key Point:
If a nonresident possesses or uses federal property, and a civil statute authorizes enforcement against such use, the federal government may be able to assert jurisdiction based on the defendant’s connection to federal property within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has recognized that federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over property within their district, even if the owner is a nonresident, under certain federal statutes8.

4. Legislative Authority to Regulate and Enforce Civil Statutes

Congress has broad authority to regulate federal property and to create civil enforcement mechanisms. For example, under 43 U.S.C. Chapter 35, Congress authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to manage federal lands and provides for judicial review of certain administrative decisions7. This includes civil remedies and actions to enforce land use regulations.

Statutory Authorization:
If a federal statute expressly authorizes civil enforcement actions against nonresidents who possess or use federal property, and the statute provides a mechanism for service of process or notice, courts may assert jurisdiction over such parties8. For example, federal in rem actions (actions against property itself) are specifically contemplated by federal law, and notice can be given as provided by statute.

5. No Requirement of Domicile for Civil Enforcement

Domicile is not a prerequisite for civil enforcement under federal law if the defendant is otherwise subject to the court’s jurisdiction. For example, if a nonresident uses federal property within a federal district, and a federal statute authorizes civil enforcement, the court may have jurisdiction over the defendant based on their use or possession of that property.

Summary Table

Requirement	Criminal Statute	Civil Statute (with statutory authorization)
Domicile/Consent Required?	No	No (if statute authorizes jurisdiction)
Jurisdiction Based On	Federal property	Federal property/statutory authorization
Enforcement Mechanism	Prosecution	Civil action (in rem or in personam)

6. Legislative Reach: Statutory Authority

Congress can legislate civil enforcement mechanisms against nonresidents who possess or use federal property if the statute expressly provides for such enforcement and specifies the jurisdictional basis. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal statutes (such as those governing federal land management) provide for notice and service of process in such cases7 8.

Conclusion

There is authority for Congress to legislate civil enforcement against nonresidents in possession of federal property, provided the statute authorizes such enforcement and specifies the jurisdictional basis. Federal courts may assert jurisdiction over nonresidents based on their use or possession of federal property within the court’s district, and domicile is not required if statutory authorization exists7 8.

If you cannot find authority for a particular civil statute, it may be because the statute itself does not expressly provide for enforcement against nonresidents, or because the jurisdictional provisions are not sufficiently clear. However, as a general matter, Congress has the power to create civil enforcement mechanisms against nonresidents on federal property, and federal courts may exercise jurisdiction if authorized by statute.

QUESTION 5:

Does your answer to the last question change if the property that the nonresident party is in possession of is not within or sitting on federal territory within the exclusive jurisdiction OR within the subject matter jurisdiction of the national government?

ANSWER 5:

Sources

law.cornell

28 U.S. Code § 1391 – Venue generally – Law.Cornell.Edu

Overview of Personal Jurisdiction and Due Process | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov

Amdt14.S1.7.1.1 Overview of Personal Jurisdiction and Due Process

kwm

JURISDICTION OVER AND SERVICE ON NON-U.S. PARTIES IN U.S.

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S.

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S. – IRS

If the property a nonresident party is in possession of is not within federal territory under exclusive jurisdiction, nor subject to the federal government’s subject matter jurisdiction, then the answer does change significantly.

Key Differences in Legal Reach

Exclusive or Proprietary Federal Jurisdiction:
- When property is within exclusive or proprietary federal jurisdiction, Congress and federal authorities have broad power to regulate and enforce laws—both civil and criminal—against anyone on or using that property, including nonresidents5.
- The federal government can legislate and enforce civil statutes (if authorized) because the property itself is under federal control, and courts can assert jurisdiction based on the property’s location and the federal government’s ownership5.
Property Outside Federal Jurisdiction:
- If the property is not within federal territory (i.e., not land or property under exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary federal jurisdiction), then the federal government lacks the same jurisdictional hook.
- In such cases, civil enforcement against a nonresident would generally require that the defendant have minimum contacts with the forum (the state or federal district) or that the property be located within the forum, consistent with due process requirements2 6 7.
- FRCP 17(b) and personal jurisdiction rules would apply as normal, meaning that simply possessing or using non-federal property would not, by itself, subject a nonresident to federal civil enforcement if there is no other basis for jurisdiction2 7.

Constitutional and Procedural Limits

Due Process and Minimum Contacts:
- The Supreme Court has held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over a defendant for any judgment to be valid2 6.
- For nonresidents, this typically requires that the defendant have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum such that it is fair and reasonable to require them to defend a lawsuit there2 7.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
- If the property is not within the federal government’s subject matter jurisdiction (i.e., not federal land, not a federal building, not a matter of federal concern), then federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over civil disputes involving that property against nonresidents, unless another federal question or diversity jurisdiction applies2 7.

Summary Table

Property Location/Jurisdiction	Federal Civil Enforcement Possible?	Basis for Jurisdiction
Within exclusive/proprietary federal	Yes	Federal ownership, property location
Outside federal jurisdiction	Generally no	Only if minimum contacts or other basis

Conclusion

If the property is not within or sitting on federal territory under exclusive or proprietary jurisdiction, or within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal government, then federal civil enforcement against a nonresident party is generally not available unless there is an independent basis for jurisdiction (such as minimum contacts with the forum or another federal question)2 7 8. The federal government’s authority to legislate and enforce civil statutes in such situations is much more limited.

QUESTION 6:

Would Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 place the property but not the person in possession of the property in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction outside of federal territory within the subject matter jurisdiction?

ANSWER 6:

Sources

constitution.congress

Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov

constitution.congress

Article IV Section 3 | Constitution Annotated | Library of Congress

law.cornell

Property Clause | U.S. Constitution Annotated – Law.Cornell.Edu

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Article Four of the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

No, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (the Property Clause) does not place property—or the person in possession of the property—in a “legislatively foreign jurisdiction outside of federal territory within the subject matter jurisdiction” simply because the property is owned by the United States but is not within federal territory or exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Here’s a breakdown of the legal implications:

1. Property Clause Scope

The Property Clause empowers Congress to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”1 3 5. This means Congress has broad authority to regulate and manage federal property, including land, buildings, and other assets, but it does not create a special or “foreign” jurisdiction simply by virtue of federal ownership.

2. Federal Territory vs. Federal Property in States

Federal Territory: Refers to lands under the exclusive federal jurisdiction (such as the District of Columbia, federal enclaves, or territories). Here, federal law generally applies fully.
Federal Property in States: Most federal property is located within state boundaries but is owned by the federal government. The Property Clause allows Congress to regulate this property, but it does not remove the property or its occupants from the jurisdiction of the state unless Congress has expressly ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the federal government5 6.

3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Federal courts can hear cases involving federal property if a federal question is involved (such as a dispute over federal land management), but the mere ownership of property by the federal government does not automatically create federal subject matter jurisdiction over all matters related to that property or its occupants.
Personal Jurisdiction: To enforce civil statutes against a nonresident in possession of federal property, the court must have personal jurisdiction over that person, which is determined by traditional rules (minimum contacts, service of process, etc.), not solely by federal ownership of the property.

4. “Legislatively Foreign Jurisdiction”

The Property Clause does not establish a “foreign jurisdiction” for federal property outside of federal territory. The property remains subject to federal law as authorized by Congress, but the surrounding legal framework (including jurisdiction over persons) is still governed by the location of the property and applicable constitutional and procedural rules5 6.

5. Summary Table

Scenario	Effect of Property Clause
Property in federal territory	Full federal jurisdiction
Federal property in a state	Federal law applies, but state law also applies unless preempted; no “foreign jurisdiction” created
Nonresident in possession of federal property (not in federal territory)	Subject to federal laws regarding the property, but personal jurisdiction still required for enforcement

Conclusion

The Property Clause gives Congress the power to regulate federal property, but it does not place federal property—or the person in possession of it—in a “legislatively foreign jurisdiction outside of federal territory within the subject matter jurisdiction.” Federal ownership of property does not, by itself, remove the property or its occupants from the jurisdiction of the state or exempt them from normal jurisdictional rules5 6.

QUESTION 7:

So is it then correct to say that a nonresident party in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress who has in their possession government property could only become the target of enforcement for LOCAL law within the state of the Union they are physically within but not the laws of the national government owning the property? Meaning, that they would have to be sued in STATE court and not FEDERAL court because federal preemption does NOT apply?

ANSWER 8:

Sources

Justice Manual | 1630. Protection Of Government Property — Real Property — 18 U.S.C. 7

Justice Manual | 1630. Protection Of Government Property — Real …

uscourts

Comparing Federal & State Courts

slc.ca

Federal Legislative Jurisdiction | CA State Lands Commission

fletc

Territorial Jurisdiction on Federal Property (MP3)

Your question is nuanced and touches on several important legal distinctions. Here is the breakdown:

1. Federal Jurisdiction and Legislative Authority

Federal Property Outside Exclusive/Concurrent Jurisdiction:
- If the federal property is located within a state but the federal government has not accepted exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction (i.e., it only has “proprietary jurisdiction”), the property remains subject to state law, except where federal law specifically applies or preempts state law1 3.
- Federal criminal jurisdiction is not automatic just because the property is owned by the federal government1.
- For civil matters, unless a federal statute provides a specific cause of action or jurisdictional hook, enforcement would generally be under state law, not federal law.

2. Civil Enforcement and Jurisdiction

Nonresident Party and Local Law:
- If a nonresident is in possession of federal property located within a state, and the federal government has not accepted exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, that person is generally subject to the laws of the state where the property is located1 3.
- Federal preemption (where federal law displaces state law) does not apply unless there is a clear federal statute or regulation that expressly preempts state law or provides a federal remedy.
- If there is no federal preemption and no federal statute authorizing a civil cause of action, the owner (the federal government) would generally have to sue in state court to enforce its rights, just as any other property owner would1 5.

3. Federal vs. State Courts

State Courts:
- State courts have general jurisdiction and can hear cases involving property located within the state, including cases brought by the federal government5 6.
- Unless federal law provides otherwise, state law governs civil disputes over property within the state5 6.
Federal Courts:
- Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and can only hear cases involving federal questions, diversity of citizenship, or where the United States is a party, provided there is a federal statute authorizing the suit5.
- If the dispute is purely about state law or if federal law does not provide a cause of action, the federal government would have to sue in state court5 6.

4. Summary Table

Scenario	Jurisdiction	Court for Civil Enforcement
Federal property with exclusive/concurrent jurisdiction	Federal	Federal court (if federal law applies)
Federal property with only proprietary jurisdiction (no exclusive/concurrent jurisdiction)	State (unless federal law preempts)	State court (unless federal statute provides otherwise)

Conclusion

Yes, it is generally correct that a nonresident party in possession of federal property located in a state, where the federal government does not have exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction, could only be the target of enforcement for local (state) law, not the laws of the national government, unless a federal statute expressly provides otherwise. In such cases, the federal government would have to sue in state court to enforce its rights, unless federal law preempts state law or creates a federal cause of action1 3 5.

Federal preemption does not automatically apply simply because the property is owned by the federal government; it requires a specific federal statutory basis.

QUESTION 8:

Would the same limitation apply to PENAL but not CRIMINAL provisions attached to the use of said property such as the “persons” mentioned in 26 U.S.C. 7343?

ANSWER 8:

Sources

lawhelp

The Differences between Criminal Court and Civil Court | LawHelp.org

The Abt Law Firm, LLC

State Vs. Federal Criminal Cases – The Abt Law Firm

uscourts

Types of Cases – United States Courts

The Judicial Learning Center | An online companion to the Judicial Learning Center in St. Louis, Missouri.

Criminal vs. Civil Court Cases | The Judicial Learning Center

The distinction between penal and criminal provisions is nuanced, but in U.S. law, penal generally refers to laws that impose a penalty, which often includes both civil penalties and criminal sanctions, while criminal provisions specifically involve prosecution for crimes with the potential for imprisonment or other criminal sanctions1 4. However, for jurisdictional purposes, courts and statutes often treat civil penalties (penal provisions) and criminal penalties similarly when it comes to the reach of federal law.

Let’s address your specific question regarding 26 U.S.C. § 7343 (the definition of “person” for certain tax enforcement provisions) and the application of penal (but not strictly criminal) provisions:

Analysis of Penal Provisions and Jurisdiction

Penal Provisions vs. Criminal Provisions
- Penal provisions (such as civil penalties, forfeitures, or fines) are generally enforceable through civil proceedings, not criminal prosecution1 4.
- Criminal provisions involve prosecution by the government for violations of law, with potential imprisonment1 4.
Jurisdictional Limitations
- For property not within exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction:
  - As previously established, if the property is not within federal territory or under exclusive/concurrent federal jurisdiction, the federal government’s authority to enforce its laws (criminal or civil) against nonresidents is limited5 7.
  - Penal provisions attached to the use of federal property, such as civil fines or forfeitures, are subject to the same jurisdictional limitations as other federal civil enforcement—unless a federal statute provides a clear jurisdictional basis or the property is within federal jurisdiction5 7.
  - 26 U.S.C. § 7343 defines “person” for certain Internal Revenue Code provisions, but it does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction over a nonresident on property outside federal territory.
Application to 26 U.S.C. § 7343
- The definition of “person” in § 7343 is relevant only for the purposes of the statutes in which it is referenced.
- If the property is not within federal territory or exclusive/concurrent jurisdiction, and the nonresident is not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction (e.g., through minimum contacts or another federal hook), then penal provisions (civil penalties, forfeitures, etc.) would be subject to the same jurisdictional limitations as civil statutes—meaning enforcement would generally require state court action unless federal law specifically provides otherwise5 7.
- Federal preemption or specific statutory authorization would be required for federal courts to assert jurisdiction over a nonresident in possession of federal property outside federal territory5 7.

Summary Table

Provision Type	Property in Federal Jurisdiction?	Federal Enforcement Possible?	Jurisdictional Basis Required
Criminal	Yes	Yes	Exclusive/concurrent federal jurisdiction or federal statute
Criminal	No	Generally no	Only if statute provides otherwise
Penal (civil fine)	Yes	Yes	Exclusive/concurrent federal jurisdiction or federal statute
Penal (civil fine)	No	Generally no	Only if statute provides otherwise

Conclusion

The same jurisdictional limitation applies to penal (civil penalty) provisions as to civil statutes: if the property is not within federal territory or exclusive/concurrent federal jurisdiction, and there is no federal statute providing a clear jurisdictional basis, then the federal government generally cannot enforce penal provisions against a nonresident in possession of that property. Enforcement would have to be pursued in state court, unless a federal statute expressly overrides this limitation5 7. The definition of “person” in 26 U.S.C. § 7343 does not, by itself, alter this jurisdictional analysis.

QUESTION 9:

If the scope of 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) is established through the language “includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs,” and whereas the term “includes” is a term of enlargement. Additionally, we know the federal income tax is extended to persons with a pecuniary United States Property Interest through the 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) “trade or business” franchise.

With the foregoing in mind, is it correct to say that 26 U.S.C. §6671(b) only applies to a “United States person”? Or could it also extend to a “nonresident alien” with income effectively connected to a “trade or business” under 26 U.S.C. §871(b)?

ANSWER 9:

Sources

Findlaw

U.S. Code Title 26. Internal Revenue Code § 6671 – Codes – FindLaw

law.cornell.edu

United States person from 26 USC § 7701(a)(30) – Law.Cornell.Edu

irs.gov

Effectively connected income (ECI) | Internal Revenue Service

20.1.9 International Penalties

20.1.9 International Penalties | Internal Revenue Service

Answer:

No, 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) is not limited to “United States persons” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30). The penalties under § 6671 apply to any “person” (as broadly defined in the Internal Revenue Code) who violates provisions within the subchapter, including nonresident aliens (NRAs) with income effectively connected to a U.S. trade or business. Here is the analysis:

1. Scope of 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b)

Text of § 6671(b):“The term ‘person’, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.”
Key Points:
- The term “includes” is a term of enlargement, not limitation.
- The definition of “person” here is broader than the general definition in 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1) (which defines “person” as “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation”).
- The penalties under this subchapter apply to any person (individual or entity) required to comply with the relevant tax provisions, regardless of citizenship or residency.

2. Application to Nonresident Aliens (NRAs)

NRAs Engaged in a U.S. Trade or Business:
- NRAs with effectively connected income (ECI) are subject to U.S. income tax on that income and must file Form 1040-NR.
- They are also subject to penalties under § 6671 if they fail to comply with tax obligations related to their U.S. trade or business (e.g., failure to file, failure to pay, or failure to provide required information).
Example:
- If an NRA operates a business in the U.S. and fails to file a required return or pay taxes on ECI, they are subject to penalties under § 6671, even though they are not a “United States person” as defined in § 7701(a)(30).

3. Legal Authority Supporting This Interpretation

26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1):
- Defines “person” to include individuals (which includes NRAs).
IRS Guidance (IRM 20.1.9):
- The IRS explicitly applies penalties under § 6671 to foreign persons (including NRAs) for failures such as not filing Form 5472 (for foreign-owned corporations) or Form 8865 (for foreign partnerships).
Case Law:
- Courts have upheld penalties against NRAs for noncompliance with U.S. tax laws, as the term “person” in the Internal Revenue Code is not restricted to U.S. citizens or residents.

4. Summary Table

Term/Statute	Scope	Applies to NRAs?
26 U.S.C. § 6671(b)	Penalties for noncompliance	Yes (if engaged in U.S. trade/business)
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(1)	Broad definition of “person”	Includes NRAs
26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26)	“Trade or business” definition	Includes NRAs with ECI

5. Conclusion

26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) applies to any “person” required to comply with the subchapter’s provisions, including nonresident aliens with effectively connected income from a U.S. trade or business. The term “includes” in § 6671(b) expands the definition of “person” to cover corporate officers, partnership members, and others with compliance duties, but it does not exclude NRAs. The IRS and courts consistently apply these penalties to foreign persons engaged in U.S. activities.

QUESTION 10:

Would your answer change if the nonresident alien only had income that was NOT effectively connected under 26 U.S.C. 871(a) and which only appeared on Schedule NEC?

ANSWER 10:

Sources

LII / Legal Information Institute

26 U.S. Code § 871 – Tax on nonresident alien individuals

irs.gov

Taxation of nonresident aliens | Internal Revenue Service

irs.gov

Nonresident aliens | Internal Revenue Service

Form Pros

Form 1040-NR (Schedule NEC)

Answer:

Yes, the answer changes if the nonresident alien (NRA) only has income not effectively connected (non-ECI) to a U.S. trade or business and reports it solely on Schedule NEC (Form 1040-NR). Here’s the analysis:

1. Key Definitions and Scope

26 U.S.C. § 6671(b):
- Applies penalties to “any person” (including NRAs) who violates provisions in Subchapter B of Chapter 68 (Assessable Penalties).
- Defines “person” to include corporate officers/employees with compliance duties.
Non-ECI (26 U.S.C. § 871(a)):
- Income not connected to a U.S. trade or business (e.g., dividends, interest, royalties).
- Taxed at a flat 30% (or lower treaty rate) via withholding at the source.
- Reported on Schedule NEC, not on the main Form 1040-NR.

2. When Do Penalties Under § 6671(b) Apply?

Subchapter B Penalties (e.g., §§ 6694–6699) target specific violations like:
- Fraudulent tax returns (§ 6694).
- Failure to file certain information returns (§ 6698).
- Violations by tax preparers or promoters.
Non-ECI and Subchapter B:
- If the NRA’s only U.S. income is non-ECI and tax is fully withheld at the source, they generally have no filing requirement (unless claiming a refund or treaty benefits).
- Most penalties for non-ECI (e.g., failure to file Form 1040-NR) fall under Subchapter A penalties (e.g., § 6651 for failure to file), not Subchapter B.
- § 6671(b) penalties apply only to violations within Subchapter B, which are rare for NRAs with non-ECI.

3. Practical Examples

Scenario 1:
- NRA earns $1,000 in U.S. dividends (non-ECI). Tax is fully withheld at 30% ($300).
- No filing requirement ⇒ No penalty under § 6671(b).
Scenario 2:
- NRA earns $1,000 in non-ECI but needs to file Form 1040-NR to claim a refund due to a tax treaty.
- Failure to file would trigger penalties under § 6651 (Subchapter A), not § 6671(b).

4. Summary Table

Situation	Penalty Authority	Applies to Non-ECI?
Failure to file Form 1040-NR	§ 6651 (Subchapter A)	Yes
Fraudulent return for non-ECI	§ 6663 (Subchapter A)	Yes
Failure to file Subchapter B information returns	§ 6671(b) (Subchapter B)	Rarely

5. Conclusion

If a nonresident alien only has non-ECI (reported on Schedule NEC) and no Subchapter B obligations, § 6671(b) penalties do not apply. Most penalties for non-ECI (e.g., failure to file Form 1040-NR) fall under Subchapter A, not Subchapter B.

Exceptions:

If the NRA violates a Subchapter B provision (e.g., fraudulent information return), § 6671(b) penalties could apply.
If the NRA is a corporate officer or partnership member with compliance duties related to Subchapter B, penalties might apply.

In short:
For typical non-ECI cases, § 6671(b) is irrelevant. The answer changes because Subchapter B penalties rarely apply to NRAs with only non-ECI.

QUESTION 11:

Would the result be the same for the last question in the case of 26 U.S.C. 7343, the penal provisions of the I.R.C.?

ANSWER 11:

Sources

uscode.house

26 USC 7343: Definition of term “person” – OLRC Home

law.cornell

26 U.S. Code § 7343 – Definition of term “person” – Law.Cornell.Edu

govinfo

26 U.S.C. 7343 – Definition of term “person” – Content Details – GovInfo

codes.findlaw

26 U.S.C. § 7343 – U.S. Code Title 26. Internal Revenue Code § 7343

The result for the penal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (specifically, 26 U.S.C. § 7343 and related criminal statutes) is similar but not identical to the result discussed for civil penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6671(b) and is highly fact-dependent.

1. Scope of 26 U.S.C. § 7343

Definition:
- “The term ‘person’ as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.”1 2 4
Application:
- This definition applies to Chapter 75 (Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures) of the Internal Revenue Code.
- It is used to determine who may be subject to criminal liability for violations of the tax laws.

2. Application to Nonresident Aliens (NRAs) with Non-ECI

Non-ECI and Criminal Liability:
- If a nonresident alien (NRA) only has non-ECI (not effectively connected income) and no other involvement in a U.S. trade or business or corporate/partnership role, they generally do not have a filing requirement for most income.
- No filing requirement = no criminal liability for failure to file or pay tax on non-ECI, unless a specific obligation exists (e.g., claiming a refund, treaty benefit, or having a U.S. withholding agent role).
- If the NRA is a corporate officer, partnership member, or has a duty to perform an act required by the tax laws (e.g., withholding agent), they could be subject to criminal penalties if they willfully fail to comply.
Penalties and Provisions:
- 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Tax Evasion), § 7202 (Willful Failure to Collect or Pay Over Tax), § 7203 (Willful Failure to File, Pay, etc.):
  - These provisions apply to any “person” as defined in § 7343, which includes NRAs if they have the requisite duty or obligation.5
  - Willfulness is always a required element for criminal liability.
- Example:
  - An NRA who is a corporate officer with a duty to file or pay tax on behalf of the corporation could be criminally liable under § 7202 if they willfully fail to perform that duty.
  - An NRA with only non-ECI and no such duty or obligation generally would not be criminally liable.

3. Summary Table

Situation	Criminal Liability Under § 7343/Chapter 75?
NRA with only non-ECI, no duty/obligation	No
NRA corporate officer/partnership member with duty	Yes (if willful violation)
NRA withholding agent with duty	Yes (if willful violation)

4. Conclusion

For the penal provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (Chapter 75, § 7343), the result is similar to the civil penalty analysis but with a key distinction:

If a nonresident alien only has non-ECI and no duty or obligation under the tax laws, they are generally not subject to criminal penalties under these provisions.
If the NRA is a corporate officer, partnership member, or otherwise has a duty to perform an act required by the tax laws, they could be criminally liable if they willfully fail to comply.1 5

In short:
The result is the same as for civil penalties in that most NRAs with only non-ECI are not liable, but if they have a duty or obligation (e.g., as an officer or withholding agent), they could be subject to criminal penalties under § 7343 and related provisions.

QUESTION 12:

Would those nonresident aliens who elect “employee” status by filing a W-4 fit in the classification of corporate officer under 26 U.S.C. 7343?

ANSWER 12:

Sources

Aliens employed in the U.S.

Aliens employed in the U.S. | Internal Revenue Service

irs

[PDF] Notice 1392 (Rev. January 2020) – IRS

irs

Withholding certificate and exemption for nonresident employees – IRS

financialservices.ouhsc

Nonresident Alien (NRA) Payroll Tax Forms

No, nonresident aliens who elect “employee” status by filing a Form W-4 do not automatically fit the classification of a “corporate officer” under 26 U.S.C. § 7343 simply by virtue of being an employee.

Here is the breakdown:

1. What 26 U.S.C. § 7343 Covers

Definition:
- “The term ‘person’ as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.”
Purpose:
- This provision is used to determine who may be subject to criminal liability for violations of the tax laws under Chapter 75 (Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures).
- It is not about employment status for tax withholding purposes but about legal duties and responsibilities within a corporation or partnership.

2. Who Is a “Corporate Officer”?

Corporate Officer:
- A person who holds a formal office in a corporation (e.g., president, vice president, secretary, treasurer).
- Has legal duties and responsibilities to the corporation, including compliance with tax laws.
Employee:
- A person hired to perform work for the corporation, but without the legal authority or responsibility of an officer.
- Filing a W-4 simply establishes tax withholding status as an employee; it does not confer any legal authority or duty of a corporate officer1 2 5.

3. Form W-4 and Nonresident Alien Employees

Form W-4:
- Used by employees to instruct employers on how much federal income tax to withhold from their wages.
- Nonresident aliens must follow special instructions to complete the form, but this does not change their legal status or duties within the company1 2 5.
No Legal Authority:
- Electing “employee” status by filing a W-4 does not make a nonresident alien a corporate officer or give them corporate responsibilities.
- Only those who are formally appointed as officers (or, in some cases, certain employees with specific compliance duties) are covered by § 7343 as “officer or employee of a corporation…under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.”

4. Summary Table

Role/Status	Covered by § 7343?	Notes
Nonresident alien employee	No	Unless they have specific corporate compliance duty
Corporate officer	Yes	If they have a duty to perform the act in question
Regular employee	Rarely	Only if under a duty to perform the act in question

5. Conclusion

Nonresident aliens who elect “employee” status by filing a W-4 are not classified as corporate officers under 26 U.S.C. § 7343.
They may only be subject to the expanded definition in § 7343 if they are an officer or if, as an employee, they are under a specific duty to perform an act required by the tax laws—not simply by being an employee and filing a W-41 2 5.

QUESTION 13:

You said that possession of public property doesn’t automatically create or a public office or agency position, and that in order for such an agency or office to exist, it must have duties prescribed by law. Doesn’t the Internal Revenue Code itself prescribe such duties of those who adopt a civil status, tax status, or legal status under it? And like a public officer, don’t those duties relate to a defined period of time just like the duration of a public office has a fixed length?

ANSWER 13:

Sources

irs.gov

Adoption Credit | Internal Revenue Service

irc.bloombergtax.com

Sec. 7803. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue; Other Officials

LII / Legal Information Institute

26 U.S. Code § 7803 – Commissioner of Internal Revenue

6.316.1 Temporary and Term Appointments

6.316.1 Temporary and Term Appointments | Internal Revenue Service

Your question raises a nuanced point about the distinction between public office or agency status and the obligations created by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). Here’s a detailed answer based on legal principles and the context you provided:

1. Possession of Public Property vs. Public Office

Possession or use of public property (such as receiving government benefits or credits) does not automatically create a public office or agency relationship.
A public office or agency is a position created by law, with duties, authority, and a defined relationship to the government or the public.
Key legal principle:
- For someone to be a public officer or agent, the law must explicitly prescribe duties, authority, and responsibilities—not merely confer a benefit or impose a tax obligation.

2. The Internal Revenue Code and Prescribed Duties

The IRC does prescribe duties for taxpayers and tax administrators.
- For example, taxpayers must file returns, pay taxes, and comply with reporting requirements.
- IRS officials and employees have duties prescribed by law (see 26 U.S.C. § 7803 for the Commissioner’s and other officials’ duties2 3).
However, these are not the same as the duties of a public officer or agent.
- Taxpayers: The duties imposed on taxpayers (such as filing a return or paying tax) are statutory obligations that apply to the general public, not duties of a public office.
- IRS Employees: These individuals are public officers or employees because their positions, duties, and terms are established by law and appointment2 3 4.

3. Civil/Tax/Legal Status and Duration

Civil, tax, or legal status under the IRC (such as being a taxpayer, dependent, or beneficiary) does not make someone a public officer or agent.
Duration of status:
- Many tax-related statuses (e.g., eligibility for a credit, employment, or benefit) are tied to a specific tax year or period, similar to how a public office has a defined term.
- However, the mere existence of a time-limited obligation or benefit does not transform a private person into a public officer or agent.
- The defining feature of a public office is the delegation of a portion of sovereign power or government authority, not just a time-limited duty or benefit.

4. Example: Adoption Credit

Adoption Credit (26 U.S.C. § 23):
- The IRC prescribes who can claim the credit, what expenses qualify, and how to claim it1.
- These are statutory eligibility rules and obligations for taxpayers, not public office duties.
- The credit applies for a specific adoption event or period, but this does not create a public office or agency relationship.

5. Summary Table

Status/Duty	Public Office/Agency?	Prescribed by Law?	Duration/Term?
IRS Commissioner/Employee	Yes	Yes	Fixed/appointed term
Taxpayer (filing, paying tax)	No	Yes	Tax year or event
Adoption credit recipient	No	Yes	Adoption event/period
Holder of public property	No	Sometimes	Varies

6. Conclusion

The Internal Revenue Code does prescribe duties for those who adopt certain civil, tax, or legal statuses, but these are not public office or agency duties.
A public office requires explicit legal creation, prescribed governmental duties, and a delegation of public authority—not just statutory obligations or eligibility for benefits.
The presence of time-limited duties or benefits under the tax code does not, by itself, create a public office or agency relationship.

In summary:
While the IRC does prescribe obligations and eligibility periods for taxpayers, this does not make taxpayers public officers or agents. Only positions created by law with governmental authority and prescribed official duties constitute public office or agency status2 3 4.

QUESTION 14:

But once a “taxpayer” adopts a public status for himself such as “U.S. person”, isn’t he then charged with managing all public property attached to that office by the use of the SSN franchise mark? Meaning, isn’t he then managing public property that must be RETURNED at the end of the year on a tax “return”? And doesn’t that constitute governmental authority over public property?

ANSWER 14:

Sources

USCIS

Chapter 4 – Adoption Definition and Order Validity – USCIS

irs.gov

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments — Section I (D to E) – IRS

sedm.org

About SSNs on Government Forms and Tax Correspondence

Gordon Law Group | Experienced Chicago Tax Attorneys

What to Do If Someone Filed a Tax Return Using Your SSN

Your question conflates several legal concepts and misinterprets the nature of tax obligations. Here’s a precise, evidence-based analysis:

1. “U.S. Person” Status and Public Office

Legal Definition of “U.S. Person” (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30)):
- Includes citizens, residents, domestic corporations/partnerships, estates/trusts.
- Does not create a public office or agency relationship.
- Tax obligations arise from statutory requirements, not from holding a governmental position.
Public Office vs. Taxpayer Status:
- Public office requires delegation of sovereign authority, prescribed duties, and formal appointment (e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)).
- Taxpayer status is a statutory classification imposing obligations (e.g., filing returns, paying taxes) but confers no governmental authority or duty to manage public property.

2. Social Security Number (SSN) and “Franchise Mark”

SSN Function (42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)):
- A unique identifier for tax, employment, and benefit administration.
- Not a “franchise mark” or symbol of authority.
- Courts reject claims that SSNs create a contractual or agency relationship (Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986)).
Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a):
- Prohibits denying rights/benefits solely for refusing to disclose an SSN unless required by federal statute.
- Confirms SSNs are administrative tools, not grants of authority.

3. Tax Returns and “Returning” Public Property

Tax Return Purpose (26 U.S.C. § 6011):
- A report of income, deductions, and tax liability.
- Not a surrender or “return” of public property.
- Taxes are compulsory contributions to fund government operations, not temporary custody of public assets.
Public Property Management:
- Managed by government agencies (e.g., Treasury, IRS) under statutory authority.
- Taxpayers have no duty or authority to manage public property; their obligation is to pay taxes and comply with reporting requirements.

4. Governmental Authority and Tax Obligations

Taxing Authority (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1):
- Congress has plenary power to tax, but this does not transform taxpayers into government agents.
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): Income tax is a valid exercise of congressional authority, not a delegation of power to taxpayers.
No Delegation of Sovereign Power:
- Taxpayers do not exercise governmental authority by filing returns or paying taxes.
- United States v. Neff, 954 F.2d 698 (11th Cir. 1992): Tax obligations are statutory duties, not voluntary contracts or agency relationships.

5. Summary Table

Concept	Legal Reality	Authority
“U.S. person” status	Statutory classification, not public office	26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(30)
SSN	Administrative identifier, not a franchise or mark of authority	42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2); Bowen v. Roy
Tax return	Report of income/tax liability, not management of public property	26 U.S.C. § 6011
Governmental authority	Held by agencies/officials, not taxpayers	Buckley v. Valeo

6. Conclusion

Adopting “U.S. person” status and using an SSN does not create a public office, confer governmental authority, or impose a duty to manage public property. Tax returns are statutory reporting obligations, not a surrender of public assets. The SSN is an administrative identifier, not a franchise mark. Courts and statutes consistently reject the conflation of tax compliance with public office or agency relationships.

QUESTION 15:

Isn’t the income tax a franchise and excise tax upon “the functions of a public office”, which is described as a “trade or business” in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(26)? And if it is, and if 26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(b) requires those who are NOT “U.S. person” agents of the national government but instead “nonresident aliens” to ONLY use SSNs when they are connected to the excise taxable franchise, doesn’t that mean the SSN is a franchise mark?

ANSWER 15:

Sources

irs

[PDF] I.R.C. 7701-General Discussion – IRS

LII / Legal Information Institute

26 CFR § 301.6109-1 – Identifying numbers. – Law.Cornell.Edu

Topic no. 857, Individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN)

Topic no. 857, Individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) – IRS

Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis

The Story of the Social Security Number

Answer:
No, the federal income tax is not a franchise or excise tax on the “functions of a public office,” and the Social Security Number (SSN) is not a franchise mark. Here’s the legal analysis:

1. Income Tax vs. Franchise/Excise Tax

Income Tax (26 U.S.C. Subtitle A):
- A direct tax on income, authorized by the 16th Amendment and imposed on individuals, corporations, estates, and trusts based on their income.
- Not an excise tax (which is a tax on specific privileges, transactions, or activities).
Franchise/Excise Tax:
- A tax on the privilege of conducting certain activities (e.g., corporate franchise taxes for the privilege of operating as a corporation).
- 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26) states that “trade or business” includes the performance of public office functions, but this does not convert income tax into a franchise tax.

2. “Trade or Business” and Public Office

26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(26):“The term ‘trade or business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.”
- This definition ensures that income from public office duties is treated as income from a “trade or business” for tax purposes.
- It does not mean public office is a franchise or that income tax is an excise tax.
- Public officials’ income is taxed as ordinary income, not as a fee for a government-granted privilege.

3. SSN as a Franchise Mark

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(b):
- Requires nonresident aliens (NRAs) engaged in a U.S. trade or business to use an SSN or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN).
- Purpose: To track tax compliance, not to grant or regulate a franchise.
Franchise Mark Definition:
- A franchise mark is a trademark or symbol identifying a business relationship (e.g., McDonald’s golden arches).
- The SSN is an administrative identifier, not a symbol of a franchise or commercial privilege.

4. Key Legal Distinctions

Concept	Income Tax	Franchise/Excise Tax	SSN Function
Nature	Direct tax on income	Tax on privileges/activities	Administrative identifier
Scope	Applies broadly to income	Applies to specific privileges	Tracks tax compliance
Public Office Link	Taxes income from public office	Does not apply to public office	No connection to franchise rights

5. Conclusion

The income tax is not a franchise or excise tax. It is a direct tax on income, including income from public office duties.
The SSN is a tax identification number, not a franchise mark. Its requirement for NRAs engaged in U.S. trade or business is for administrative tracking, not to confer or regulate a franchise.

In summary:
The statutory language and regulatory framework do not support the claim that the income tax is a franchise/excise tax or that the SSN is a franchise mark. These are distinct legal concepts with separate purposes and functions.

QUESTION 16:

By your own definition, doesn’t the Sixteenth Amendment in effect make “profit” into a privilege and public property?

ANSWER 16:

Sources

constitution.congress

Sixteenth Amendment | Browse – Constitution Annotated

Ronald Reagan

Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 16 – “Income Taxes”

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

What the Sixteenth Amendment Actually Does

Text:“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Purpose:
- The Amendment overruled the Supreme Court’s decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., which had held that certain income taxes were “direct taxes” and thus had to be apportioned among the states by population3 5.
- It did not create a new power to tax income; Congress already had that power under Article I, Section 8. The Amendment removed the apportionment restriction for income taxes3 5 8.

Does This Make Income a Privilege or Public Property?

No, income is not made a privilege:
- The Amendment does not transform the right to earn income or profit into a government-granted privilege.
- It does not require a license, franchise, or special permission to earn income.
- The power to tax is a sovereign power, not a declaration that the taxed subject is a government privilege or property.
No, income is not made public property:
- The government’s ability to tax income does not mean the government owns all income or profit.
- Private property remains private, subject to the government’s taxing power.
- The Supreme Court and legal scholars have consistently rejected the idea that taxation converts private property into public property; taxation is a compulsory contribution, not a transfer of ownership.

Key Legal Authority

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916):
- The Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment.”3
Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner:
- The Sixteenth Amendment did not create the power to tax income; it only removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes3.
Scholarly consensus:
- The Amendment is about the method and scope of taxation, not the nature of property or privilege3 5 8.

Summary Table

Concept	Sixteenth Amendment Effect
Income as privilege	No: Taxing power ≠ privilege status
Income as public property	No: Taxation ≠ government ownership
Income tax power	Yes, without apportionment

Conclusion

The Sixteenth Amendment does not make “profit” or income a privilege or public property.
It simply allows Congress to tax income from any source without the apportionment requirement. The right to earn income remains a private right, and private income remains private property, subject to the government’s constitutional taxing power—not converted into a privilege or public asset by the existence of the tax1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.

QUESTION 17:

If the Sixteenth Amendment doesn’t make PROFIT into PUBLIC PROPERTY, then doesn’t that mean the government is STEALING private property? The court citation below seems to indicate that:

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: [1] First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; [2] second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and [3] third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

ANSWER 17:

Sources

constitution.congress

Sixteenth Amendment | Browse – Constitution Annotated

Ronald Reagan

Constitutional Amendments – Amendment 16 – “Income Taxes”

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – Wikipedia

1. What the Sixteenth Amendment Does

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. It does not convert private income into public property; it simply allows the government to levy a tax on private income. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the Amendment did not create a new kind of property or privilege, but removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes3 5.

2. Taxation vs. Taking

Taxation is a recognized and constitutional function of government, not a taking of property in the sense of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that taxation is not a taking that requires compensation, but a compulsory contribution to support government functions. The Budd v. New York language you cite refers to eminent domain (the taking of property for public use), not taxation. The distinction is crucial:

Eminent domain: Government takes specific private property for public use and must pay “just compensation.”
Taxation: Government imposes a general financial obligation on citizens and residents to fund public services; no compensation is required because ownership of the property is not transferred to the government—only a portion is collected as tax.

3. Supreme Court Authority

In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916), the Court made clear that the Sixteenth Amendment did not create a new power to tax or convert private income into public property. Rather, it clarified that income taxes could be imposed without apportionment3.
The power to tax is an inherent attribute of sovereignty, not a form of theft or conversion of property.

4. Taxation and Private Property

Taxation does not mean the government claims ownership of all income or profit. Private property remains private, subject to the lawful power of taxation. The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the argument that taxation is equivalent to theft or confiscation.

5. The Budd Case Context

The passage from Budd v. New York refers to the conditions under which government may regulate or take property, not to the general power of taxation. The Court has always recognized a distinction between taxation and taking for public use.

In summary:
The Sixteenth Amendment does not make profit or income into public property, nor does the government “steal” private property by taxing it. Taxation is a constitutional and necessary function of government, not a taking that requires compensation, and not a conversion of private wealth into public property1 3 5 6 7 8.

QUESTION 18:

Isn’t taxation just a method of PAYING for the regulation of the use of property. Therefore, isn’t it in essence just a form of regulation of PUBLIC property. Otherwise, the absolute owner of private property would have the “right to exclude” government uses or benefit of their private property, right?

Unless of course you define PRIVATE property as ALSO being subject to such regulation or taxation.

ANSWER 18:

Sources

boe.ca

Property Tax Rules – California State Board of Equalization – CA.gov

25.18.1 Basic Principles of Community Property Law

25.18.1 Basic Principles of Community Property Law – IRS

[PDF] California Property Tax: An Overview

scholarship.law.uc

[PDF] Taxing Property Transfers Between Cohabiting Adults

No, taxation is not simply a method of regulating public property, nor does it convert private property into public property. Here’s how the law and established doctrine address your points:

1. Taxation and Regulation: Distinct Concepts

Taxation is the government’s constitutional power to require individuals and entities to pay money to support public functions. It applies to both private and public property, but does not convert private property into public property5 6 8.
Regulation refers to rules governing the use, transfer, or disposition of property. Regulation can apply to both private and public property, but regulation alone does not change the ownership status of property.

2. Private Property Remains Private, Even When Taxed

Private property is defined as property owned by individuals or non-governmental entities6.
The government’s power to tax private property is recognized as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty and does not mean the government owns or has a property interest in what is taxed5 6 8.
The right to exclude others (including the government) is a core element of private property, but this right is not absolute. It is subject to lawful limitations, such as taxation or zoning, but these do not make the property public5 6.

3. Taxation vs. Taking

Taxation is not considered a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, which would require just compensation5 8.
The Supreme Court and legal scholars distinguish between taxation (a general, ongoing obligation) and takings (a specific, compelled transfer of property for public use)5 8.
Taxation is viewed as a “lesser evil” and a normal incident of property ownership in society, not as a confiscation or conversion to public use5.

4. Regulation and the “Right to Exclude”

Private property is always subject to some regulation and taxation5 6.
The fact that government can tax or regulate private property does not mean the property is public or that the owner loses the fundamental incidents of ownership.
Absolute ownership without any public limitation does not exist in American law; all property is subject to the police power (regulation) and the taxing power5 6.

5. Legal and Scholarly Consensus

“Taxation may often be considered to actually entrench and validate formal ownership, thus strengthening the security of title and formal rights. … Taxation is generally considered to be less controversial than the governmental taking of property strands that are intuitively analogized to the core concepts of private law. In this sense, it is more convenient for courts to view taxation as a qualitatively distinctive type of governmental intervention with privateproperty.
— 5

Conclusion

Taxation is not regulation of public property; it is a constitutional power that applies to private property without converting it to public property.
Private property owners do not have the right to exclude the government from imposing taxes or reasonable regulations, but this does not make their property public.
The definition of private property in American law includes the understanding that it is always subject to lawful taxation and regulation5 6 8.

In summary:
Taxation is a recognized, constitutional means of funding government and regulating society, but it does not transform private property into public property or make the government a co-owner. The rights of private property owners are robust but not absolute—they exist alongside the government’s taxing and regulatory powers.

QUESTION 19:

You are correct among those who have CONSENTED to become a CIVIL STATUTORY member of “the State” as a private membership association. The CIVIL STATUTORY code are the rules for such an association certainly. But what about NON-MEMBERS such as nonresident aliens who have no domicile, elections, civil status, or tax status? Wouldn’t those non-members NOT be subject to the CIVIL STATUTORY law implementing the rules ONLY for those who are members of the CIVIL STATUTORY protection club by virtue of their consensual domicile within “the State” as a legal entity?

Aren’t the rights of private property owners are absolute in the case of those who have consented to NOTHING, and thereby retained their ABSOLUTE private ownership under the Fifth Amendment?

Answer 19:

Sources

virtualunderwriter

Aliens And Aliens’ Investments – Virtual Underwriter

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S.

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S. – IRS

irs

Nonresident aliens | Internal Revenue Service

hklaw

[PDF] Nonresident Ownership of U.S. Homes

No, nonresident aliens who are not domiciled in the United States and have not elected a U.S. tax status are not considered “members” of a civil statutory association or “the State” in the sense you describe, but they are still subject to U.S. law—including taxation—on certain activities and property within the United States.

Here’s a breakdown based on law and your sources:

1. Nonresident Aliens and U.S. Civil Statutory Law

Nonresident aliens (NRAs) are individuals who do not meet the “green card” or “substantial presence” tests for U.S. tax residency3 8.
NRAs are not “members” of the U.S. political or civil community in the sense of citizenship or domicile, and they do not have the full range of rights or obligations as U.S. citizens or residents.
However, NRAs are still subject to U.S. statutory law in certain contexts—especially when they own property, earn income, or conduct business in the U.S.2 5 6.

2. Taxation and Property Rights of Nonresident Aliens

NRAs can own property in the U.S. (with some restrictions in certain states or on agricultural land)1 6 7.
Income from U.S. sources (such as real estate or investments) is subject to U.S. tax law, even if the owner is a nonresident alien256.
- For example, rental income and gains from the sale of U.S. real estate are taxed at specific rates and subject to withholding rules (e.g., FIRPTA)2 6.
- The IRS enforces these rules regardless of the property owner’s “consent” or “membership” in any statutory association.

3. Absolute Rights and the Fifth Amendment

Private property rights in the U.S. are robust but not absolute.
- The Fifth Amendment protects against uncompensated government takings, but it does not exempt anyone—citizen or alien—from reasonable regulation or taxation.
- The Supreme Court has consistently held that taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment; it is a lawful exercise of sovereign power.
Nonresident aliens do not have “absolute” rights to exclude U.S. law from affecting their U.S. property.
- Their property and activities within the U.S. are subject to U.S. statutes, regulations, and taxes, even if they have not “consented” in the sense of political membership2 5 6.

4. Summary Table

Status	Subject to U.S. Civil Statutory Law?	Subject to U.S. Tax on U.S. Property/Income?	Rights Absolute?
U.S. Citizen/Resident	Yes	Yes	No
Nonresident Alien (NRA)	Yes (for U.S. property/income)	Yes (for U.S. property/income)	No
Nonresident Alien, no U.S. ties	No (outside U.S. jurisdiction)	No	N/A

5. Conclusion

Nonresident aliens are not “members” of the U.S. civil statutory association, but they are still subject to U.S. law—including taxation—when they have property, income, or business in the United States.
No one, regardless of citizenship or consent, has absolute property rights immune from all government regulation or taxation in the U.S.
The Fifth Amendment protects against uncompensated takings, not against lawful taxation or regulation.

In summary:
Nonresident aliens who have not consented to U.S. civil status or tax status are not “members” in the sense of full citizenship or domicile, but their U.S. property and income are still subject to U.S. law and taxation. Absolute property rights do not exist under U.S. law for anyone with U.S. property or income, regardless of consent or membership status2 5 6.

QUESTION 20:

Would your answer to the last question CHANGE if the nonresident alien was not an alien, but rather a “national of the United States”?

ANSWER 20:

Sources

LII / Legal Information Institute

alien | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

uscode.house

8 USC 1101: Definitions – OLRC Home

uscis

Glossary – USCIS

travel.state.gov

Certificates of Non Citizen Nationality – Travel.gov

If the individual is a “national of the United States” rather than a nonresident alien, the analysis changes in important ways, but the core principle remains: U.S. statutory law—including tax law—applies to U.S. nationals, even if they are not citizens.

Who Is a “National of the United States”?

Definition:
- A “national of the United States” is someone who owes permanent allegiance to the United States1 2 4 5 6 7.
- All U.S. citizens are U.S. nationals, but some individuals (such as those born in American Samoa or Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not U.S. citizens4 5.
Not an Alien:
- Under U.S. law, an “alien” is anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States1 2 5 6 7.
- Nationals are distinct from both aliens and citizens, but are not foreign to the United States.

Legal Status and Application of U.S. Law

Jurisdiction:
- U.S. nationals, regardless of citizenship, are generally subject to U.S. federal law, including tax law, when they reside in or have income from the United States.
Taxation:
- U.S. nationals are typically taxed in a manner similar to citizens, especially if they reside in the U.S. or have U.S.-source income.
- If they reside outside the U.S., their tax obligations may differ, but they are not treated as nonresident aliens for tax purposes.
Property Rights:
- U.S. nationals have the right to own property in the U.S. and are subject to U.S. law regarding that property1 4 5.

Absolute Property Rights?

No Absolute Exemption:
- Even as a national (not a citizen), a person is not exempt from U.S. statutory law or taxation on U.S. property or income.
- The U.S. government’s power to tax and regulate property applies to all within its jurisdiction, including nationals who are not citizens.
- Absolute property rights do not exist under U.S. law for anyone with property or income in the U.S., regardless of citizenship or national status.
Fifth Amendment:
- The Fifth Amendment protects against uncompensated takings, but does not provide immunity from taxation or regulation for nationals any more than it does for citizens or aliens1.

Summary Table

Status	Subject to U.S. Law?	Subject to U.S. Tax on U.S. Property/Income?	Absolute Rights?
U.S. Citizen	Yes	Yes	No
U.S. National (not citizen)	Yes	Yes	No
Nonresident Alien	Yes (for U.S. property/income)	Yes (for U.S. property/income)	No

Conclusion

If the individual is a “national of the United States” (even if not a citizen), they are subject to U.S. statutory law—including taxation—on U.S. property and income. They do not have absolute property rights exempt from government regulation or taxation, and their status as a national does not exempt them from the reach of U.S. law. The distinction between “national” and “citizen” does not create an exemption from statutory obligations or taxation for property or income within U.S. jurisdiction1 4 5 6 7.

QUESTION 21:

What if the property was NOT U.S. property, but PRIVATE property not situated on lane within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government, but rather within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state of the Union? Would your last answer STILL be the same?

ANSWER 21:

Sources

Justice Manual | 1630. Protection Of Government Property — Real Property — 18 U.S.C. 7

Justice Manual | 1630. Protection Of Government Property — Real …

fletc

Territorial Jurisdiction on Federal Property (MP3)

fjc.gov

Jurisdiction: Land – Federal Judicial Center |

§ 515.313 Property subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

31 CFR § 515.313 – Property subject to the jurisdiction of the United …

If the property in question is private property situated solely within a constitutional state of the Union, not on land under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the United States, then the federal government’s jurisdiction over that property is limited—but not eliminated. Here’s the legal framework, supported by your search results and established doctrine:

1. Federal vs. State Jurisdiction Over Property

Federal Jurisdiction:
- The United States can only exercise exclusive legislative jurisdiction over land within a state if:
  1. The state consents to the federal purchase for constitutionally enumerated purposes (Article I, Section 8, Clause 17).
  2. The state cedes jurisdiction.
  3. The federal government reserves jurisdiction upon state admission1 5.
- Absent these actions, private property within a state remains under the state’s “exclusive jurisdiction” for most purposes, including property law, most civil regulation, and local taxation1 5.
Federal Enclave Laws:
- Apply only to lands under federal exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction—such as military bases, federal buildings, or national parks1 5.

2. Federal Taxation Power

Federal Taxation Is Not Limited to Federal Enclaves:
- The federal government’s power to tax income, gifts, and estates is not geographically limited to federal land or enclaves.
- Congress has constitutional authority (under the Sixteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 8) to tax income “from whatever source derived,” including income or property located within a state, so long as the taxpayer is subject to U.S. jurisdiction (e.g., as a citizen, resident, or in some cases, a U.S. national)7 8.
- The Supreme Court has consistently upheld federal taxation of private property and income within states, regardless of whether the land is under federal jurisdiction.

3. State Law and Private Property

States Retain Primary Authority Over Private Property:
- Property rights, conveyances, and most regulations are governed by state law8.
- States may provide greater protection for property rights than the federal Constitution requires7.
- Federal law does not generally interfere with state property law unless a specific federal interest is at stake (e.g., federal taxation, federal criminal law, or interstate commerce)1 3.

4. Absolute Property Rights?

No Absolute Exemption from Federal Law:
- Even if property is not on federal land, the owner is not immune from federal law, especially federal taxation.
- The right to exclude the government is not absolute; all property in the U.S. is subject to the sovereign powers of both the state and federal governments, including taxation and regulation8.
- The Fifth Amendment protects against uncompensated takings, but not against lawful taxation.

5. Summary Table

Property Location	Federal Legislative Jurisdiction?	Subject to Federal Taxation?	State Law Applies?
Federal enclave (exclusive/concurrent)	Yes	Yes	Sometimes
Private property, state jurisdiction	No (for most purposes)	Yes	Yes

Conclusion

If the property is private and located within a constitutional state, not on federal land, it is governed primarily by state law and is not under federal legislative jurisdiction for most purposes. However, federal taxation and other federal laws of general applicability (such as anti-discrimination, environmental, or criminal laws) still apply.

Absolute property rights do not exist under U.S. law—private property is always subject to both state and federal sovereign powers, including taxation and regulation, regardless of its physical location within a state. The only areas where federal legislative jurisdiction is exclusive are those specifically ceded or reserved for federal use under the Constitution1 5 8.

QUESTION 22:

You just mentioned that absolute property rights do not exist under U.S. law, but you also admitted that U.S. law doesn’t govern private property outside of its exclusive jurisdiction. Are you suggesting that absolute property rights DO exist outside of exclusive state jurisdiction where the party is similarly a nonresident alien who is a “national of the United States”, has no domicile in the state, and has made no elections such as a legal status, tax status, or civil status?

ANSWER 22:

Sources

irs

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S. – IRS

irs

Nonresident aliens | Internal Revenue Service

Abaesq

How Estate and Tax Laws Treat Nonresident Aliens’ U.S. Real …

virtualunderwriter

Aliens And Aliens’ Investments – Virtual Underwriter

No, absolute property rights do not exist for anyone—regardless of citizenship, national status, or domicile—if their property is within the jurisdiction of any sovereign government. Here’s why, based on law and your search results:

1. Jurisdiction Is Key

U.S. Law Does Not Govern Property Outside Its Jurisdiction:
- If property is located outside the United States and outside any U.S. territory or federal enclave, then U.S. statutory law—including tax law—generally does not apply to that property or its owner, whether the owner is a nonresident alien, a U.S. national, or a U.S. citizen.
- In such cases, the property is governed by the laws of the country or jurisdiction in which it is located.
Within U.S. States:
- If property is within a U.S. state (not a federal enclave), it is primarily subject to state law.
- However, federal law—including federal tax law—still applies to certain activities, persons, and types of property, even within the states. For example, U.S. nationals and citizens are taxed on worldwide income, and nonresident aliens are taxed on U.S.-source income and U.S.-situated property7 8.

2. No “Absolute” Property Rights Under U.S. or State Law

All Property Rights Are Subject to Sovereign Powers:
- Both federal and state governments retain the power to tax, regulate, and, in some cases, expropriate property (with compensation) within their jurisdiction.
- Even state law does not recognize “absolute” property rights; all property is subject to reasonable regulation, taxation, and the police power of the state.
- The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment and that property rights are not absolute.

3. Nonresident Aliens and U.S. Nationals Without Domicile or Elections

Nonresident aliens and U.S. nationals without U.S. domicile or other ties are generally not subject to U.S. law for property outside the U.S.
If they own property within a U.S. state, that property is subject to state law and, where applicable, federal law (such as federal taxation on U.S.-source income or U.S.-situated assets)1 3 7 8.
No “consent” is required for the application of these laws; jurisdiction is based on the location of the property and the reach of sovereign power, not on the owner’s personal elections or status alone.

4. Summary Table

Property Location	Governing Law	Subject to U.S. or State Tax/Regulation?	Absolute Rights?
Outside U.S. jurisdiction	Local (foreign) law	No	No
Within U.S. state (not enclave)	State & some federal	Yes (state/federal tax, regulation)	No
Federal enclave in U.S.	Federal law	Yes	No

5. Conclusion

Absolute property rights do not exist under U.S. law or the law of any U.S. state.

If property is outside U.S. jurisdiction, U.S. law does not apply—but the property is still subject to the laws and powers of the jurisdiction where it is located.
If property is within a U.S. state, it is always subject to the sovereign powers of that state and, where applicable, the federal government.
No person—citizen, national, or alien—holds property “absolutely” free from all government regulation, taxation, or limitation, anywhere in the world.

In summary:
Property rights are always subject to the legal authority of the jurisdiction in which the property is located. There is no legal regime in the U.S. (or elsewhere) that recognizes truly “absolute” property rights.

QUESTION 23:

You state: “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment and that property rights are not absolute.” Please cite the u.s. supreme court holding of this in the case of a nonresident alien who is a “national of the United States” or “U.S. national” and who has not made any elections such as a tax status, legal status, or civil status or a domicile within the forum.

ANSWER 23:

Sources

irs.gov

Anti-tax law evasion schemes – Law and arguments (Section IV) – IRS

Frost Brown Todd LLC

Supreme Court Rules that States Can’t Take More…

irs.gov

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments — Section I (D to E) – IRS

constitutioncenter

The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause | Constitution Center

The U.S. Supreme Court has never held that federal taxation constitutes a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment for any person—including a nonresident alien, a U.S. national, or a person with no domicile or elections in the United States. The Court’s position is categorical and does not depend on the taxpayer’s status as a citizen, national, or alien.

Key Supreme Court Precedent

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916):“It is … well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due processclause.
This holding applies to all persons subject to U.S. tax law, regardless of their citizenship, nationality, or domicile1 3.
Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595–97 (1931):
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges and reaffirmed that the existence of a post-collection remedy (such as a tax refund suit) satisfies constitutional due process. This applies to all “taxpayers,” not just citizens1 3.

Scope of the Ruling

The Court’s reasoning is based on the nature of the taxing power itself, not on the specific status of the taxpayer. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause is not a restriction on Congress’s taxing authority—it does not matter whether the person is a nonresident alien, a U.S. national, or a citizen.
The Supreme Court has never created an exception for nonresident aliens, U.S. nationals, or those with no domicile or elections. The rule is universal: taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment1 3.

Summary Table

Status	Is Taxation a Fifth Amendment Taking?	Supreme Court Authority
U.S. Citizen	No	Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.
U.S. National (not citizen)	No	Brushaber, Phillips v. Commissioner
Nonresident Alien	No	Brushaber, Phillips v. Commissioner
No domicile/elections/status	No	Brushaber, Phillips v. Commissioner

In summary:
The Supreme Court has consistently and unequivocally held that taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, regardless of the taxpayer’s citizenship, national status, domicile, or elections1 3. There is no Supreme Court case holding otherwise for nonresident aliens, U.S. nationals, or any other category of person.

QUESTION 24:

Of course there can be no Fifth Amendment taking in the case of a civil statutory “taxpayer”. You can’t be a “taxpayer” and have Fifth Amendment rights at the same time. They are mutually exclusive. I didn’t ask about “taxpayers” because that is a CIVIL STATUS. I asked you for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that EXPLICITLY applies to nonresident aliens who are “nationals of the United States”, who consent or elect to NOTHING, including a domicile, civil status, tax status, or legal status. If the Declaration of Independence says that all just powers derive from consent of the governed and such a party GAVE not consent in any form, aren’t their Fifth Amendment rights intact and thus, isn’t their ownership of the property ABSOLUTE? If it isn’t, why the HELL do we even NEED a Fifth Amendment in the case of taxation?

ANSWER 24:

Sources

supreme.justia

Burnet v. Brooks | 288 U.S. 378 (1933)

supremecourt

[PDF] 22-800 Moore v. United States (06/20/2024) – Supreme Court

supreme.justia

Barclay & Co., Inc. v. Edwards | 267 U.S. 442 (1925)

irs

Publication 515 (2025), Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens …

There is no U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that nonresident aliens who are “nationals of the United States” and who have not made any elections, including domicile, civil status, tax status, or legal status, are immune from federal taxation or have “absolute” Fifth Amendment property rights against taxation. In fact, the Court has held the opposite: federal taxation of property or income within U.S. jurisdiction is constitutional, and such taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, regardless of consent or status.

Relevant Supreme Court Precedent

Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U.S. 378 (1933)

“A tax by the United States on securities and bank accounts owned by a nonresident alien but kept in this country, being within the federal taxing power and not being arbitrary or confiscatory, is consistent with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.” 1

This case directly addressed the constitutionality of taxing property owned by a nonresident alien that was located in the United States. The Court held that such taxation is within Congress’s power and does not violate the Fifth Amendment, as long as it is not arbitrary or confiscatory.

Barclay & Co., Inc. v. Edwards, 267 U.S. 442 (1925)

The Court reaffirmed that the power of Congress in laying taxes is very wide, and the Fifth Amendment does not apply to discrimination between taxpayers based on a classification3. The Court did not carve out exceptions for nonresident aliens or nationals of the United States.

General Principle

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that taxation is not a taking under the Fifth Amendment. This applies universally, not just to “taxpayers” by civil status, but to anyone subject to U.S. jurisdiction with property or income within the reach of U.S. law8.

Consent and the Power to Tax

The Declaration of Independence’s principle that “just powers derive from the consent of the governed” is a political philosophy, not a legal limitation on the federal taxing power. The Constitution, as ratified by the people and the states, grants Congress the power to tax. The Supreme Court has never held that an individual’s lack of explicit consent, domicile, or election immunizes them from lawful taxation on property or income within U.S. jurisdiction.

Summary Table

Status/Condition	Subject to U.S. Tax on U.S. Property/Income?	Fifth Amendment “Taking” Applies to Taxation?	Supreme Court Holding?
Nonresident alien, U.S. national, no domicile/elections	Yes (if property/income is in U.S.)	No (taxation is not a taking)	Burnet v. Brooks (1933)1
Nonresident alien, non-U.S. national, no U.S. property/income	No	N/A	N/A

Conclusion

There is no Supreme Court holding that nonresident aliens who are U.S. nationals and who have not “consented” in any form are immune from U.S. taxation or have absolute property rights against taxation under the Fifth Amendment. The Court has upheld federal taxation of property and income within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of the owner’s status or consent, and has held that such taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment1 3 8.

QUESTION 25:

The fact that the Court has never held that the parties described have absolute property rights is not surprising, because its obviously a third rail issue. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true. It just means there are no honest or honorable judges.

ANSWER 25:

Sources

Justia Law

Clark v. Allen | 331 U.S. 503 (1947)

constitution.congress

ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.2 Aliens in the United States – Constitution Annotated

Constitutional Law Reporter

4th Amendment Rights of Nonresident Aliens Under United States

irs

Nonresident aliens – Real property located in the U.S. – IRS

Your assertion that the absence of a Supreme Court holding on “absolute property rights” for nonresident aliens who are U.S. nationals with no elections or domicile is due to judicial avoidance of a “third rail” issue is not supported by constitutional doctrine or precedent. The Supreme Court and lower courts have addressed the constitutional rights of nonresident aliens and nationals, and the scope of property rights and due process, in a variety of contexts.

Let’s clarify the law with evidence from your search results and established doctrine:

1. Fifth Amendment Protections for Nonresident Aliens and Nationals

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects “persons,” not just citizens or “members” of a civil association2 6.
Supreme Court: “The Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent”6.
Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503 (1947): The Court addressed the rights of nonresident aliens to inherit property in the U.S., recognizing that states may place conditions on such rights, but did not suggest that nonresident aliens (or nationals) have “absolute” property rights immune from all regulation or taxation1 5.

2. No “Absolute” Property Rights—Even for Nonresident Aliens and Nationals

Property rights in the U.S. are never “absolute.”
- They are always subject to the sovereign powers of the jurisdiction in which the property is located, including taxation, regulation, and—if justified—expropriation with compensation.
- Toop v. Ulysses Land Co., 237 U.S. 580 (1915): The Supreme Court upheld state statutes restricting alien ownership of real estate, confirming that property rights—even for nonresident aliens—are subject to statutory limitations7.
- Clark v. Allen and related cases show that states can regulate or restrict the inheritance rights of nonresident aliens, subject to federal supremacy in foreign affairs1 5.

3. Location and Jurisdiction Matter

Property outside U.S. jurisdiction:
- U.S. law (including the Fifth Amendment) generally does not apply to property located outside the United States or its territories3.
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990): The Court held that constitutional protections (in that case, the Fourth Amendment) do not extend to nonresident aliens with respect to property outside U.S. territory3.
Property within a U.S. state:
- Even if the owner is a nonresident alien or a U.S. national with no elections or domicile, the property is subject to the laws of the state and, where applicable, federal law4 5 8.

4. Consent and the Power to Tax

The Constitution grants Congress the power to tax, and this power is not dependent on individual consent.
The Declaration of Independence is a statement of political philosophy, not a legal limitation on Congress’s taxing power.
No Supreme Court case has held that lack of “consent” exempts anyone from lawful taxation or regulation of property within U.S. jurisdiction.

5. Why the Fifth Amendment?

The Fifth Amendment exists to require due process and just compensation for takings, not to create “absolute” property rights immune from all government power.
Taxation is not a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, as repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court, and applies to all property within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of the owner’s status or consent.

Summary Table

Owner Status	Property Location	Subject to U.S. Law/Tax?	Absolute Rights?	Key Cases/Authority
Nonresident alien/U.S. national, no elections	In U.S./state jurisdiction	Yes	No	Clark v. Allen, Toop v. Ulysses Land Co.
Nonresident alien/U.S. national	Outside U.S.	No	No	Verdugo-Urquidez

Conclusion

There is no legal or constitutional doctrine—nor Supreme Court holding—that grants “absolute” property rights to nonresident aliens or U.S. nationals with no elections or domicile.
Property within the United States is always subject to the sovereign powers of the jurisdiction in which it is located, including taxation and regulation, regardless of the owner’s consent or status. The Fifth Amendment requires due process and just compensation for takings, but does not make property rights absolute or immune from taxation.