PROOF OF FACTS: That the I.R.C. Subtitle A Income Tax is Based on USPI and implemented with a mandatory DOMICILE resulting from your voluntary election of CIVIL “citizen**+D of the United States”

By ftsig-admin | June 10, 2025

State taxation in the case of political citizens* is based entirely on domicile per the U.S. Supreme Court:

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

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

The above case, however, limits itself to state taxation and doesn’t even mention income taxation. Federal income tax is different. The Internal Revenue Code Subtitle A FEDERAL income tax, however, NOWHERE mentions “domicile” as a criteria for having an alleged income tax liability. Only in the case of estate taxes under I.R.C. Subtitle B is domicile even mentioned as a criteria for the income tax. However, EVEN in the case of the national income tax at least insofar as it concerns POLITICAL citizens* but not CIVIL citizens**+D domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state, it TOO is based entirely upon CIVIL domicile. However, the connection to domicile is hidden by the courts from view. Here’s how it works:

  1. I.R.C. Subtitle A nowhere mentions domicile as a criteria for tax liability.
    1.1. Unlike state income tax, domicile is still used, but it is no longer the SUBJECT of the tax but a mechanism to IMPLEMENT the tax.
    1.2. The SUBJECT of the excise tax is an ACTIVITY called a “trade or business”.
    1.3. You voluntarily engage in the activity by making a civil election and thus BECOME a CIVIL Citizen**+D in the case of the “U.S. Person” election as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30).
    1.4. Even if YOU don’t volunteer to become a privileged “U.S. Person“, you can still volunteer your PROPERTY by “effectively connecting” it.
  2. The POLITICAL citizens* in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) have no domicile but also have no liability either.
  3. The CIVIL “citizens**+D” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b) have both privileges and obligations, and are CIVIL “citizens* of the United StatesG, which SEDM calls “United States****”. The EXISTENCE in the statute of those privileges and obligations, which are a PROPERTY interest in YOU or YOUR PROPERTY is legal evidence that:
    3.1. A PUBLIC status or office is involved, rather than a human being who has REAL constitutional rights and private property.
    3.2. You as the PRIVATE human and POLITICAL citizen* have to VOLUNTEER for the office or status to ACQUIRE the privileges and obligations, and in so doing become “clothed with a public interest”, which the code calls “trade or business”. Thus, there is a “tacit procuration” involved, because most people aren’t fully aware of this LEGAL process.
    If they didn’t do it this way, they could make you a slave and steal anything they want from you WITHOUT consent. So they make the consent INVISIBLE and IMPLIED rather than EXPLICIT and hope you don’t notice. By doing so, they violate the constitutional requirement for “reasonable notice” and INFORMED consent in most cases.
  4. In order to transition from a POLITICAL citizen* in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) to a CIVIL citizen**+D in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b), an ELECTION is required by filing a 1040 income tax return. That election is then reflected by a change in status of the Social Security Number attached to the “taxpayer’s” account in 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(g)(1)(i).
  5. Because the SSN (“trade or business” franchise mark) can have EITHER a DOMESTIC or a FOREIGN status, ANYONE can transition to or from a DOMESTIC or FOREIGN status simply based on the tax return that they file:
    5.1. If they file a 1040, they transition to DOMESTIC and are assimilated into the United States federal corporation as its agent.
    5.2. If they file a 1040NR, they RETAIN their default and FOREIGN and PRIVATE status as a “nonresident alien”.
    5.3. If remain a “nonresident alien” but attach the SSN franchise mark to property without making the “U.S. Person” election, they in effect have donated PRIVATE property to a PUBLIC use by attaching it to the franchise mark.
    The above process is documented in the following article:
    How You Volunteer-GRAPHICALLY!, FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/how-you-volunteer/how-you-volunteer-graphically/
  6. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized these differences in the following two cases:
    6.1. “Citizen of the United States” taxpayer domiciled WITHOUT the United States in the case of U.S. v. Goelet, 232 U.S. 293 (1914) had NO TAX LIABILITY:
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6688960919852572593.
    6.2. “Citizen of the United States” taxpayer domiciled WITHIN the United States in the case of U.S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299 (1914) had tax liability:
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16108812717442094384
    The above two cases are further discussed in:
    U.S. v. Goelet, 232 U.S. 293 (1914) and U.S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299 (1914), FTSIG
    https://ftsig.org/u-s-v-goelet-232-u-s-293-1914-and-u-s-v-bennett-232-u-s-299-1914/
  7. Not surprisingly, in the the above two cases, the U.S. Supreme Court never DEFINED WHICH of the MANY unique “United States” they were referring to.
    7.1. It can’t be the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state because Congress has no CIVIL jurisdiction there except by consent or election.
    7.2. When that consent or election happens, federal preemption removes the consenting party from the states exclusive jurisdiction for that subject matter.
  8. You can only have ONE domicile at a time in one physical place at a time. HOWEVER, you can be a “resident” in an unlimited number of places. “Res” is a thing and “ident” is the place that “thing” is PRESUMED to be domiciled, btw, if it is a fiction of law created by Congress.
  9. No one can FORCE you to have a domicile. It MUST be consensual or identity theft is involved. AND, you can choose a domicile in a place OTHER than the place you physically reside. You can even choose a domicile where there is no government! See:
    Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
    https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf
  10. Even without a CIVIL domicile within exclusive federal jurisdiction, you can still REPRESENT a fiction of law that IS domiciled there, as recognized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Thus:
    10.1. The OFFICER can be domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state while. . .
    10.2. The OFFICE or STATUS is domiciled within the District of Columbia as required by 4 U.S.C. §72.
    The above are recognized in 26 C.F.R §301.7701(b)-2, keeping in mind that a “trade or business” as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) RECOGNIZES the status as an office of some kind in the case of civil “persons”, which are always FICTIONS and PUBLIC property. It doesn’t NEED to be a PUBLIC OFFICE to be taxable, but it CAN be. The office only needs to be PUBLIC property of the national government to be taxable. You don’t have to be appointed or politically elected to serve in it. You only have to VOLUNTEER through your OWN “election”.
  11. In “trade or business” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) says “includes the performance of the function of public office.”
    11.1. The “function of public office” is the general class (illustrative example) that drives the enlargement by the term “includes.”
    11.2. “Public office” is ONLY ONE attribute of United States Property Interest (USPI). USPI, meaning PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property, is what is actually taxed.
    11.3. Both “persons” and “property” can have a public status. When they are, the U.S. Supreme Court refers to them as “clothed with a public interest”. That is how EITHER become taxable, in fact.
    11.4. The office or status as public property is, in effect, RENTED to you and the income tax is the “rent” for the USE or “benefit” of that property. Thus, Uncle Sam is in the “rent an ident” service, just like Avis Rent-A-Car.
  12. The “citizen of the United States” is a fiction of law created and therefore owned as property by Congress. See Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 69-70, 102 S.Ct. 2858 (1983); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886. Thus, they have a right to regulate and tax its use under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. anyplace in the WORLD that it is LAWFULLY but CONSENSUALLY exercised, such as that found in 26 U.S.C. §911. It’s use and the taxes collected from RENTING it out to others
  13. We allege that the ONLY interpretation of U.S. v. Bennett, 232 U.S. 299 (1914) above that makes any sense at all is the following:
    13.1. The “United States” that the OFFICE of “citizen of the United States” he represented was EFFECTIVELY domiciled in was the District of Columbia as required by 4 U.S.C. §72.
    13.2. It didn’t matter WHAT The domicile of the OFFICER filling said office was, because he was representing a fiction of law called “citizen**+D of the United States” legislatively created and therefore OWNED as property by Congress. See 26 C.F.R §301.7701(b)-2 for proof.
  14. Thus, Bennett was a “resident agent” for an office domiciled in th District of Columbia. This, by the way, is exactly how states of the Union presently REGISTER fictions of law.
    14.1. Every fiction of law registered with the Secretary of State must have a “resident agent” who agrees to accept service of process for the entity.
    14.2. In most BUT NOT ALL cases, that “resident agent” must be physically domiciled within the exterior boundaries of the state.
    14.3. Some states permit “nonresident agents”, and this is also the case with Uncle Sam for the “citizen**+D of the United States****” office within the “United States” federal corporation (government, NOT geography).
  15. You can’t become a “resident agent” for an office domiciled in a legislatively foreign jurisdiction without your consent, so an election is required to make it lawful. Otherwise, criminal identity theft is involved. See:
    Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
    https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf
  16. Even given all the above, those who receive no protection or benefit from the government instituting the taxation still under rules of equity owe an income tax. Government must provide SOME consideration, or else their taxation is a taking without consideration in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This scenario applies for instance, to those who physically reside on land protected by the constitution within the exclusive jurisdiction of a state, are “nonresident aliens”, make no elections, and simply want to be left alone as justice requires:
    “As was said in Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940), “[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”
    [Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100 (1975); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16559630216409245512]

    “The individual … owes no duty to the state . . . since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state,… He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
    [Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43]

In conclusion, contrary to popular belief, in the case of the federal income tax under I.R.C. Subtitle A:

  1. Income taxation of “citizens” (but not “residents”, because mere presence makes them privileged under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(A)) IS based ENTIRELY upon domicile because it is CIVIL law, and ALL civil “persons” MUST have a domicile.
  2. The “citizen**+D” subject to tax in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b) is a CIVIL DOMICILED citizen**+D
  3. The domicile of the “citizen**+D” is that of the District of Columbia, also called “United States”
  4. Those who ELECT the status are acting as “nonresident agents” for this fiction. This is confirmed by 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(39) and 26 U.S.C. §7408(d).
  5. An election is required for a POLITICAL “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) to become the CIVIL “citizen**+D” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) AND (b). That election is performed by filing a RESIDENT 1040 tax return.
  6. The election is mandatory because according to the Declaration of Independence, “all just powers derive from the CONSENT of the governed”. Those who don’t want to be at least CIVILLY governed may withdraw their consent by retaining their DEFAULT status as the “nonresident alien” described but not defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B).

The content of this article is a carefully guarded secret and a Third Rail Issue. Thus, you can expect a LOT of pushback if you argue, litigate, or debate the issue. It is literally the KEY and exit door to the income tax matrix that would destroy most of the income tax revenues of the national government and a national fiscal catastrophe if understood and implemented on a large scale by the average American. That is why:

  1. There is no statute in Title 26 that uses the language “made liable” or “liable for”. Thus, it must be voluntary. 26 U.S.C. §1461 is the only statute that uses that phrase, and it does so ONLY in the case of “withholding agents” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(16) in the case of “nonresident aliens” or “foreign corporations”.
  2. The act of merely “imposing” the income tax in 26 U.S.C. §1 ALSO does not create an enforceable liability.
  3. Congress never even DEFINES the “citizen of the United States” in the Internal Revenue Code.
  4. The Secretary of the Treasury defines the “citizen” and “citizen of the United States” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1.
  5. The regulation at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 exceeds the scope of the statutes and because it does:
    5.1. Either the act of defining it is beyond the delegated authority of the Secretary of the Treasury under 5 U.S.C. §301 and 26 U.S.C. §7805(a) OR
    5.2. All parties affected MUST be agents or workers within his Department ONLY and not other departments.
    The above are INEVITABLE, given the ruling in U.S. v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957)
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2040626426665191763
  6. The IRS publishes NO public procures expressly defining EXACTLY HOW you can change the status of the Social Security Number as described in 26 C.F.R. §301.6109-1(g)(1)(i). They simply DON’T want you to know that your DEFAULT status is that of a “nonresident alien” and that you can choose it at ANY time by simply filing the correct 1040-NR return and therefore lawfully avoiding MOST income taxes.

If you want to prove the above for yourself, see the following, which is COMPLETELY consistent with it:

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

Posted in Proof of Facts and tagged ,