Responding to an IRS determination against a nonresident alien filing a 1040NR that they are a U.S. citizen

By ftsig-admin | May 6, 2025

SCENARIO:

Some who file 1040-NR returns receive a letter from the IRS saying they are a U.S. citizen and should be filing the 1040 form instead and then possibly attempt a penalty for gross negligence. This article describes how to respond.

Not that you SHOULD NOT be responding by claiming you are NOT a “U.S. citizen” because its difficult to impossible to prove a negative. Instead respond by describe what KIND of “U.S. citizen” you are, meaning a POLITICAL citizen under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) but not CIVIL citizen under 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and (b). The following document exhaustively explains the difference between a POLITICAL citizen and a CIVIL citizen:

Why You are a Political Citizen but Civil Non-Citizen, National, and Nonresident Alien, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

RESPONSE:

In the process of procuring my property as a Merchant, you have an obligation to operate in good faith and fair dealings. That means you must prove:

That my consent is required. All just power of government DERIVES from consent provided in the form that I prescribe, which must be explicit and not implied in this case.
That you are offering meaningful consideration.
That you will honor and protect my right to not consent meaning, protect my private property by not converting it to public property without my consent, whether express or implied.

“nationals of the United States*” include anyone born or naturalized in United States the country. 26 U.S.C. §873 says that such persons are nonresident alien INDIVIDUALS only when they pursue privileged deductions, which I have not done and thus remain entirely foreign and private and beyond your civil jurisdiction. I can find nowhere else where a human being not engaging in privileges such as deductions is given reasonable notice that they are individuals, and this is consistent with the fact that the only thing Congress can write definitions for is when they affect public rather than private property.

As a human born in the _______ state and a “national of the United States*” (country, not that in the I.R.C.) and not representing an artificial entity or fiction, I would be construed as a POLITICAL but not CIVIL “citizen of the United States” under Fourteenth Amendment and therefore 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). However, as a political but not civil citizen of the State of ________ residing but not domiciled in _______ County, I would not be in the subclass of the 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) “citizen” with a domestic election contemplated in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A), 26 C.F.R. §§1.1-1(b) (reasonable notice provision), and 1.1-1(a) (duty to perform provision).

Until I consensually pursue AND RECEIVE a federal privilege that constitutes public property (which I have not) and thereby consent to waive sovereign immunity and acquire a civil of legal status you created and therefore own under the Minimum Contacts Doctrine of the Supreme Court, I remain foreign and private and protected in my right to not legally associate or contract with you. If you will not respect that constitutional right, you are engaging in identity theft. This is explained in:

How to Reject All Privileges in a Tax Return Filing, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/how-to-reject-all-privileges-in-a-tax-return-filing/

Attached is my criminal complaint against you for changing my civil status or that of my property to attach obligations to me that I did not consent to and to steal my property through the unauthorized use of my identity for commercial gain:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

Because such actions also constitute purposeful availment and a waiver of sovereign immunity on your part, then the following terms shall apply to you in the use or benefit of MY property:

Injury Defense Franchise and Agreement, Form #06.027
https://sedm.org/Forms/06-AvoidingFranch/InjuryDefenseFranchise.pdf

AUTHORITIES:

Microsoft Copilot:

QUESTION 1:

What are the legal criteria in a tacit procuration for proving that there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration?

ANSWER 1:

In a tacit procuration, the legal criteria for proving offer and consideration generally follow standard contract principles, but with an emphasis on implicit agreement rather than explicit consent.

Key Legal Criteria

Offer – There must be a clear proposal made by one party, even if it is not explicitly stated. In tacit procuration, this often occurs when one party acts on behalf of another without formal authorization, but with the assumption that the principal is aware and does not object.[1]
Acceptance – The principal’s silence or inaction can be interpreted as acceptance, especially if they benefit from the actions taken on their behalf.[2]
Consideration – There must be an exchange of value, meaning the principal receives some benefit from the procuration, and the agent performing the actions incurs some obligation or effort.[3]
Intent & Conduct – Courts often look at past behavior and reasonable expectations to determine whether a tacit agreement exists.[4]
Legal Precedents – Case law, such as Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877), has established that conduct alone can form a binding contract.[4]

Tacit procuration is often used in business dealings, estate management, and financial transactions where formal agreements are absent but actions imply consent. Would you like examples of how this applies in real-world cases?

Footnotes:

[1] https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/procuration.htm

[2] https://www.quora.com/Is-a-tacit-agreement-legally-binding

[3] https://www.upcounsel.com/three-key-elements-of-a-binding-contract#:~:text=Contract%20Elements%20Overview,-There%20are%20three&text=The%20offer%20is%20the%20proposal,as%20stipulated%20in%20the%20contract.

[4] https://legalclarity.org/what-is-tacit-acceptance-and-how-does-it-work-in-contract-law/

QUESTION 2:

Within a tacit procuration, if the Merchant wants to keep the fact that they need your consent secret, can the buyer enforce a DEMAND for an express declaration of that from the Merchant?

ANSWER 2:

In a tacit procuration, where consent is implied rather than explicitly stated, the buyer may have grounds to demand an express declaration from the Merchant—especially if the Merchant is attempting to conceal the necessity of consent.

Key Considerations

Duty of Disclosure – If the Merchant is legally required to disclose that consent is needed, failure to do so could be considered misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.
Buyer’s Right to Clarity – In many contract law frameworks, a buyer can request explicit confirmation of terms that affect their rights or obligations.
Legal Precedents – Courts often examine whether the Merchant’s actions create a reasonable expectation that consent is unnecessary. If the Merchant deliberately hides this fact, it could be challenged legally.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) & Contract Law – Under UCC principles, good faith and fair dealing require transparency in transactions. If the Merchant is withholding critical information, the buyer may have a legal basis to demand clarity.
Tacit Agreement vs. Express Declaration – While tacit procuration relies on implied consent, a buyer can argue that ambiguity in the agreement necessitates an express declaration.

Would you like examples of how this has played out in real-world cases?

QUESTION 3:

Even without a law requiring disclosure, if the Buyer indicates that the Merchant waives all rights to consideration without a full express disclosure that consent is required, is the Merchant then required to expressly disclose the existence of an offer, the nature of consent, and the cost to procure?

ANSWER 3:

In a situation where no law explicitly requires disclosure, but the Buyer asserts that the Merchant waives all rights to consideration unless full express disclosure is provided, the Merchant may still have an obligation to clarify key contractual elements. Here’s why:

Key Legal Considerations

Implied Duty of Good Faith – Even without a statutory requirement, contract law often imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing. If the Buyer reasonably expects disclosure, the Merchant may need to provide it to avoid claims of misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment.[1]
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Principles – Under UCC guidelines, particularly in sales contracts, transparency is encouraged. If the Buyer conditions their agreement on full disclosure, the Merchant may need to expressly confirm the offer, consent requirements, and costs.[2]
Waiver & Estoppel – If the Buyer explicitly states that they will not recognize consideration unless full disclosure is made, courts may interpret this as a binding condition that the Merchant must meet.
Contractual Interpretation – If the Merchant remains silent despite the Buyer’s demand for express disclosure, courts may view this as bad faith negotiation, potentially invalidating the Merchant’s claim to consideration.[3]
Legal Precedents – Case law suggests that ambiguity in contracts is often resolved against the party that had control over the terms. If the Merchant refuses to disclose key details, they may risk losing enforceability of their claims.[4]