PROOF OF FACTS: There is NO LAW that permits an American National as a Nonresident Alien to Elect to be a U.S. person if they are NOT married to one

If all citizens of foreign nations can participate in the tax system, then so can ALL citizens of the nation of the United States.

For the purpose of the I.R.C., American nationals (Citizens*) are not “U.S. persons”, however, but nonresident aliens ONLY, unless they volunteer for the PRIVILEGES associated with statutory citizenship.
American Nationals (Citizen*) not domiciled within exclusive geographical jurisdiction of the national government in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10):
2.1. Do fall within the definition of “nonresident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3).
2.2. DO NOT fall in the definition of “U.S. person” anywhere in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) or 8 U.S.C. §1401 and are therefore purposefully excluded.
Does the law EXPRESSLY PERMIT those who are nonresident aliens such as American nationals not domiciled within exclusive geographical jurisdiction (Citizens*) to make an “election” to be treated as STATUTORY “U.S. person” for any circumstance OTHER than when they are married to a STATUTORY “U.S. person” in 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h)? NO! So it isn’t EXPRESSLY authorized.
There is also NO definition of “U.S. Person” anywhere in the I.R.C. or regs or title 8 that expressly includes states of the Union. Therefore they are PURPOSEFULLY excluded
Judges are not legislators and therefore cannot remedy the exclusion of states of the Union from “United States Person” within the I.R.C. It also fails the constitutional requirement for “reasonable notice” if the law does not expressly include them.
Since the presence test at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) includes only “alien individuals”, then American nationals can never be anything BUT “nonresident” everywhere in the WORLD that they are and “nonresident aliens”.

HOWEVER, in the famous U.S. Supreme Court case of Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924) heard by no less than former President Taft, SCOTUS acknowledged the ability of ANYONE, including an American national such as Cook domiciled abroad in Mexico to ELECT a CIVIL “citizen**+D” status for the purposes of PROCURING protection while abroad under 26 U.S.C. §911. For the tax year in question, Cook DID in fact file a 1040 tax return and checked the box on the form “Are you a citizen or resident of the United States?” and lined out “resident”. See for yourself:

Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924), Citizenship of George W. Cook, Exhibit #01.025
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX01.025-CookVTait-Citizenship.pdf

Anything done by consent (Form #05.003), such as in this case, cannot form the basis for an injury. It may have been PURE STUPIDITY on Cook’s part to do this, because he could have filed as a nonresident alien and owed no tax, but he didn’t. When he made the election, he agreed to represent an OFFICE domiciled in the District of Columbia and act as a “non-resident agent” for that office, in effect.

At the time the Cook case was heard, there was no 1040NR return (Form #09.077) form and the 1040 return form was used by both “citizens” and “nonresident aliens”. The nonresident alien filers at the time had to answer the question on the 1040 return “Are you a citizen or resident of the United States?” with the answer of NO to be treated as a foreign person. You can verify this yourself by reading the following article:

Tax Return History: Citizenship, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship/TaxReturnHistory-Citizenship.htm

This ministry, by the way, PRESUPPOSES that NO ONE using our materials makes any “elections” whatsoever or ever consents to ANYTHING that any government does or wants to do from a civil perspective. Therefore, the supposition the title of this article is built on is that no consent is given. For the reason, see the following link on our opening page:

The Problem in Modern Day America, SEDM
https://sedm.org/the-problem-in-modern-day-america/

For further proof of this fact, see:

SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.33: “Citizen*” and “Citizen**+D” and “Citizenship”
https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.33._Citizen_and_CitizenD_and_Citizenship

So for those who advocate that American nationals who are nonresident aliens can LAWFULLY make an “election” to be treated as “U.S. persons” when they are NOT married to a statutory U.S. Citizen under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h), this is FALSE! The U.S. Supreme Court BY PURE FIAT has set a precedent in the Cook case that this is allowed, but in doing so, they exercised legislative powers in effect to extend the reach of the I.R.C. to those who are not subject.

Lastly, it makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER to try to do what people are calling a “Revocation of Election” in a case where there is no express statutory authority to even MAKE such an election. See:

Frivolous Subject: Revocation of Election SCAM-SEDM STRONGLY discourages members from pursuing anything called a “revocation of election”. The ONLY method endorsed by this website to correct your civil status is our Path to Freedom, Form #09.015, section 2 process. That process requires filing the CORRECT tax return, the 1040NR, as a way to change your civil status from “U.S. person” (Form #05.053) to “nonresident alien” (Form #12.045).
https://sedm.org/frivolous-subject-revocation-of-election-r-o-e/

REBUTTED FALSE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE ABOVE:

FALSE STATEMENT 1:

That which is not prohibited is permitted. What law prohibits such a choice, especially in the context of contract and the lack of impairment to engage in contract?

REBUTTAL 1:

False. The office of U.S. person is property. You need EXPRESS permission of the owner to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING with the property. If you don’t you are STEALING.

Only when the property is YOUR property and PRIVATE property is your assertion correct. Nonresident alien is NOT PUBLIC or someone else’s property. Thus you are private if you are a nonresident alien.

Only PUBLIC officers can use, handle, or benefit from PUBLIC property. That is the very essence of what a public officer is defined as:

“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]