This letter is excellent at convincing banks to accept an IRS form W-8, which allows you to remove tax withholding and Social Security numbers from your financial accounts.  It is written to specifically address institutions that won't accept your IRS Form W-8 because they say that the address on the form is not a "foreign address" because it is in the 50 states.  As we know by reading the "Great IRS Hoax" book, even addresses inside the 50 states are "foreign" with respect to the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Code. 

Please let us know if you can come up with a better form than this one, but this one worked for us!

---

 

POSITION STATEMENT
AND QUESTIONNAIRE

Date of last revision:  12-10-01

http://famguardian.org/

1.  INTRODUCTION AND REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO YOUR ANSWERS:

"The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading... We cannot condone this shocking conduct... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately"
U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F2d 297, 299-300

This document shall constitute proof of my position relative to my total lack of liability for federal income taxes.  Each question appearing in this “Test for Tax Professionals” is designed and intended to:

1.        Carefully and succinctly document and convey the detailed legal foundations of my good-faith belief of nonliability and thereby meet the burden of proof requirement imposed on me.

2.        Take me out of the characterization of being a “taxpayer” and into the category of being a sovereign “American”.

3.        Offer you an opportunity to refute each and every major point that forms the basis for my beliefs with your own authoritative and carefully-researched legal citations.

4.        Shift the burden of proof to you to establish any liability for federal taxes whatsoever.

You must complete the following questions identified in this document in order to meet the burden of proof upon you under 5 U.S.C. Section 556 as described in this document.  Failure to answer any or all question(s) shall result in the default answer being admitted on your part.  In the event the list below is empty, then you are requested to complete ALL of the questions in this document. 

In regards to this good faith inquiry, your answers to all the questions in this document must include a three part response by citing the (1) the Statute in 26 USC, (2) the Implementing Regulation [IR] in 26 CFR for that particular Statute in 26USC, and (3) the Volume, Date, and Page Number in the Federal Register as to the promulgation of the Implementing Regulation in (2) making the federal law applicable to American Citizens.  Each and every question raised in this document has a significant impact on any imputed tax liability I might have and therefore none of the questions can or should be ignored in order to properly and completely address the issues of federal tax liability.

The reason I am asking for these answers is that you need to communicate and document your authority to demand any sum and amount of liability, rather than operate on the mistaken presumption that I have “taxable income” because I have income of any kind.   I can follow the law that exists.  In your previous correspondence, you have:

·         Negligently ignored any and all claims I have made in previous correspondence.

·         Failed to identify any legal authority to impose a tax of any sort under APPLICABLE REVENUE LAW.

·         Made demands under the “color of law” that are unsubstantiated by legal authority.

Your answers will help document either fraud on your part, or will clearly identify any lawful authority that you might be using.  Each of my questions clearly documents the legal foundation and proof or evidence justifying my belief.  Therefore, these questions are designed to help you satisfy the burden of proof requirement that applies to you.  My authority for asking these questions is as follows, right from the Administrative Procedures Act, which applies directly to you and the Internal Revenue Service:

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY

CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

Sec. 556. Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence; record as basis of decision

(d) Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. A sanction may not be imposed or rule or order issued except on consideration of the whole record or those parts thereof cited by a party and supported by and in accordance with the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

This series of questions also satisfies the requirements articulated clearly by the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling as follows:

"It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442. (1950)

Any Court Decisions lower than the U.S. Supreme Court will be considered a “NON RESPONSE” and will result in your admission that the  “DEFAULT ANSWER” is valid and truthful.   As you are no doubt aware, the Judicial Branch of United States Government has no Constitutional authority to “CREATE LAW” or function in the role of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government [Congress of the United States].  Furthermore, your own Internal Revenue Manual says on this very subject:

"Decisions made at various levels of the court system... may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position... A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts... Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers." [IRM, [4.2] 7.2.9.8 (05/14/99)]

1. Question (1):  Definition of “State” and “States”

The rules of statutory construction teach that the plural of a word may not have a different meaning that the singular version of the same word.  26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(10) defines the word “State” as follows:

When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof  --  ...

State. -- The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

[IRC 7701(a)(10)]

[emphasis added]

Questions:

PART A:  In the context of Subtitles A through C income taxes applied to natural persons, does the word “States” used in the definition of “United States” 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(9) also mean only the District of Columbia?

If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “YES.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (1A): 26USC Section _________  IR in 26 CFR _______________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

PART B: If the answer to Part A above is “NO”, then in the context of Subtitles A through C income taxes applied to natural persons, does the meaning of “States” used in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(9) mean only the District of Columbia and other federal enclaves defined in 4 U.S.C. Section  110(d), which says:

(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “NO.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (1B): 26USC Section _________  IR in 26 CFR _______________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

PART C: If the answer to Part B above is “NO”, then in the context of Subtitles A through C income taxes applied to natural persons, does the meaning of “States” used in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(9) mean only the District of Columbia and federal possessions and federal enclaves defined in 4 U.S.C. Section  110(d), which says:

(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

and the 50 sovereign states which are not possessions of the “United States”?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “NO.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (1C): 26USC Section _________  IR in 26 CFR _______________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

2.  Question (2):  Definition of “United States”

We must always remember that our Congress legislates for two territorial jurisdictions as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S. 336, (1818):

"The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,"

…

"The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction. ... Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”

"It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction," 3 Wheat., at 388.”

The territorial jurisdiction that all Congressional legislation is intended to apply to absent a clearly expressed intent to the contrary is the federal zone, which are federal properties coming under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution as revealed by the U.S. Supreme Court below in U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949):

“A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

The Internal Revenue Code only applies within the territorial jurisdiction of the “United States” and has no jurisdiction over natural persons (biological people) outside that jurisdiction because of limits on direct taxation found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.  The term “United States” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code section 7701(a)(9) as:

“United States

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.”

And in that same section, “State” is defined as follows:

“State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”

You will note that “States” is the plural of “State”, and that “State” refers only to the District of Columbia, which is part of the federal United States (also called the “federal zone”) and is a federal State.  But wait, there is only one District of Columbia and they used the plural form of “State” in the definition of “United States”.  What other federal “States” do we have?  Here they are:

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 4 - THE STATES

Sec. 110. Same; definitions
(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States. 

Notice the title of the Chapter above, which is “The States”.  These are federal states, and the same “the States” appearing in the definition of the term “United States” found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) above.  These same federal States are also the only States subject to the federal income tax or the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government.  The above is from 4 U.S.C. Sections 104-113, also called the Buck Act of 1940, which was enacted by the federal government to allow states to institute state income or sales taxes inside of federal enclaves within sovereign states or in federal possessions like the Virgin Islands.  An “enclave” is property within a sovereign state that has been ceded to the federal government by a state for use, for instance, as a military base or federal courthouse.  There are 50 artificial or federal “States” within the borders of the sovereign 50 “states” under the Buck Act.  If we took all of the federal property within one of these sovereign “states” and grouped it together, this would be called a “State”.

Going back to the definitions of “Untied States” and “State” again found in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9)-(10) above, then by the rules of statutory construction, the plural of the word “State” may not have a different meaning or category than the singular of a word.  The definition of “United States” also cannot have two different meanings either that depend on the context used, meaning that it can’t mean the federal zone for individuals and the geographical United States* (the entire country) for other artificial entities, because Section 7701(a)(9) doesn’t provide two definitions or contexts.  It can only have one meaning that can consistently be applied throughout the Internal Revenue Code.  

Do either the definition of “United States” or “State” above express a clear intent to apply to areas outside the federal United States (federal properties coming under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution)?  The answer is NO!  Therefore, the term “United States” can only mean the “federal zone” within the context of the entire Internal Revenue Code as per U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949).  We have no choice, as per the rulings of the Supreme Court, to reach any other conclusion.  We wish to emphasize, however, that there are exceptions to this rule, as found in 26 U.S.C. Sections 3121 and 4612.  These sections redefine the term “United States” within selected portions of the code and for special purposes related to  excise taxes and FICA taxes.  We therefore must conclude that the income tax, by default and absent an alternate definition of “United States”, only applies in the District of Columbia and other portions of the federal United States, based on the definitions above, and that the only exceptions to this conclusion are those portions of the Internal Revenue Code which use another definition of the term “United States”!  40 U.S.C. Section 255 puts the nail in the coffin on this issue, in defining the extent of criminal jurisdiction of the “United States**” government:

United States Code 

TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS 

CHAPTER 3 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS GENERALLY 

40 U.S.C. Sec. 255. Approval of title prior to Federal land purchases; payment of title expenses; application to Tennessee Valley Authority; Federal jurisdiction over acquisitions 

Unless the Attorney General gives prior written approval of the sufficiency of the title to land for the purpose for which the property is being acquired by the United States, public money may not be expended for the purchase of the land or any interest therein.

The Attorney General may delegate his responsibility under this section to other departments and agencies, subject to his general supervision and in accordance with regulations promulgated by him.

Any Federal department or agency which has been delegated the responsibility to approve land titles under this section may request the Attorney General to render his opinion as to the validity of the title to any real property or interest therein, or may request the advice or assistance of the Attorney General in connection with determinations as to the sufficiency of titles.

Except where otherwise authorized by law or provided by contract, the expenses of procuring certificates of titles or other evidences of title as the Attorney General may require may be paid out of the appropriations for the acquisition of land or out of the appropriations made for the contingencies of the acquiring department or agency.

The foregoing provisions of this section shall not be construed to affect in any manner any existing provisions of law which are applicable to the acquisition of lands or interests in land by the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department or independent establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.

(Don’t confuse yourself.  The above use of the word “State” is different from that in Title 26, the I.R.C.  It means the states of the Union and not the federal states.)  So there you have it above!  The United States government does not have territorial jurisdiction over any land within the states of the union not explicitly ceded to it in writing by the state.  Why then would it have any jurisdiction over your private property or residence within a state, which also was never ceded to the federal government in writing?  Worse yet, why would they have any jurisdiction over you if you weren’t a U.S. citizen and were instead a U.S. national?  The answer is the U.S. government’s jurisdiction inside the states on land outside the federal zone doesn’t exist, other than to regulate and tax foreign commerce!  Only the states have territorial jurisdiction there.

Another issue to consider is deciding whether “United States” means the “District of Columbia” or the “federal zone” is the definition of the term “employee”.  Here’s the definition from 26 CFR §31.3401(c ):

26 CFR §31.3401(c ) Employee: "...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico or any political subdivision, thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.  The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation."  

Here’s what the code says about such officer “employees”, and note that they all work only in the District of Columbia:

United States Code

TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES

CHAPTER 3 - SEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT

§ 72. Public offices; at seat of government. 

All offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided by law.

Some people look at the above logic, and then say that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the income tax is an indirect excise tax and that indirect taxes can apply anywhere throughout the country under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution and that the Internal Revenue Code can therefore only define “United States” as applying to the entire country rather than just the federal zone.  However, the excise taxes on petroleum found in Subtitle D (sections 4041 through 5000 of the Internal Revenue Code) ) use a different definition of the term “United States” found in 26 U.S.C. Section 4612 that does explicitly indeed include nonfederal areas (referred to as the “50 states”)! 

Title 26
Subtitle D-Miscellaneous Excise Taxes
Chapter 38-Environmental Taxes
Subchapter A- Tax on Petroleum
26 U.S.C. Sec. 4612(a)(4) - United States 

(A) In general

The term ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

How come the U.S. government can apply the excise tax on gasoline legally within the borders of sovereign states?  Because most of the gasoline is imported (foreign commerce) and the federal government has subject matter (but not territorial) jurisdiction and regulatory authority within the borders of the sovereign states to regulate foreign commerce under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.  The power to regulate also implies the power to tax.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) defined the term “United States” as follows:

“The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses.

[1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations.

[2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672]  tends,

[3] or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”

It is of utmost importance to understand the exact meaning of the term “United States” as it relates income taxes and to the definitions of “United States” given by the Supreme Court.  Understanding this is the foundation of understanding the jurisdiction of the United States Government to impose Subtitles A through C income taxes on “natural persons”.

Questions:

All of the parts of the questions indicated below refer to the meaning of the term “United States” within the context of Subtitles A through C income taxes as applied to “natural persons” (as opposed to corporations or partnerships in receipt of indirect excise taxable privileges).

PART A:  Based on the above citation of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, please complete the following checklist defining the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service as it relates to the indicated definitions of the term “United States” found in the internal revenue code.  Please circle YES or NO under each of the three definition columns that apply to each of the three definitions given of “United States” found in the Internal Revenue Code.  Default answers that apply if you refuse to answer the question are also shown in the table.

As you complete each box in the table below, be aware of the following Constitutional restrictions imposed upon taxation by the U.S. Government:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

3 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 thru 3:

SECTION. 8.
Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

…

Clause 3 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Article 1, Section 9, Clauses 4 through 5:  No direct taxes or taxes on export from states

4 No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.7

5 No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

And the definition of “direct tax” is shown below:

One that is imposed directly upon property, according to its value.  It is generally spoken of as a property tax or an ad valorem tax.  Distinguishable from an indirect tax which is levied upon some right or privilege.

And finally, keep in mind that “labor” and consequently the wages that result from labor are “property” as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher’s Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,  111 U.S. 746 (1884)

“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are [111 U.S. 746, 757]  endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.”

Based on the above, it is quite reasonable to conclude (and I DO conclude) that since “direct taxes” are taxes on property, and that tax especially the wages of sovereign natural persons in the 50 states must, of necessity, be “direct taxes” as defined above.  It is also reasonable to conclude that wages cannot be taxed on the basis that they are earned in the process of exercising the right to support oneself enumerated above by the Supreme Court, and courts say the following about the exercise of rights:

“Legislature…cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege.”  [Taxation West Key 43]…”The Right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a ‘privilege’, that can be taxed.”  [Taxation West Key 933]-Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, 337 S.E. 2d 453, Tenn.

“The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing.  The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter power to the State, but the individual’s right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.”  Redfield v. Fisher, 292 Oregon 814, 817

Table 2‑1: Definition of “United States”: Jurisdiction of Subtitles A thru E on "natural persons"

Subtitle	26 U.S.C./ Internal Revenue Code Section	Hooven & Allison Definition of “United States” (circle YES or NO in answer to each box below)
		[1] The country	[2] Territory over which U.S. govt is sovereign under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of Constitution	[3} The collective name of the states united under the constitution
C:  Employment Taxes	26 U.S.C. §3121(e)(2)	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: NO	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: YES	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: NO
D: Miscellaneous Excise Taxes	26 U.S.C. §4612(a)(4)	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: YES	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: YES	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: YES
F:  Procedures and Administration	26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9)	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: NO	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: YES	Your answer (circle one):     YES NO Default answer: NO

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (2A): 26USC Section _________  IR in 26 CFR _______________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

PART B:  The question is,  does the term “United States” mean only the District of Columbia and possessions of the United States but not the 50 sovereign states?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “YES.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (2B): 26USC Section _________  IR in 26 CFR _______________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

3. Question (3):  Definition of the word “includes”

The word “includes” is defined in the Internal Revenue Code as follows:

“26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(c) INCLUDES AND INCLUDING. - The terms ‘include’ and ‘including’ when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.”

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as:

“(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

“Includes is a word of limitation.  Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement.  Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2^nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 further defines the word “includes consistent with the above as follows:

“Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. “Including” within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228.”

[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 (1990): ]

So we see from the above that “includes” and “including” are used to embrace or define or circumscribe the things being identified and to remove doubt about what is being described.  When the word “includes” is used as a word of enlargement, it must list the general class of items which constitution the enlargement first.  For instance:

4 U.S.C. §110  Same; definitions

(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.

A better word to use when clarity is desired is “means”, and where Congress intends to be precise, as in 26 U.S.C. Section 61, they will use the word “means” in place of “includes”. 

“Sec. 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition - … gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
   (1) Compensation for services...;
   (2) Gross income derived from business;
   (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
   (4) Interest;
   (5) Rents;
   (6) Royalties;
   (7) Dividends;... [more items listed]” [26 USC § 61]

But when Congress wants to violate due process and create confusion over definitions that the courts can use to illegally enforce a deliberately vague tax statute and expand their limited jurisdiction, they use the word “includes” instead of “means”.  For instance:

26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) United States

The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

_____________________________________________________________________

26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

The above is an especially and deliberately ambiguous definition, and it is the MOST important definition in all the Internal Revenue Code, because it defines the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. government to impose income taxes!  Since “State” was defined in both 4 U.S.C. 110(d) as 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10), we must conclude that personal income taxes found in Subtitles A through C only apply on federal property.  This is because by the rules of statutory construction, the plural of a word may not mean a different thing or class of things than the singular.

Regarding statutes levying taxes, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with the above conclusions by saying that :

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.  In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”  Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153.

A favorite trick used by the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service is to abuse the meaning of the word “includes” as a way to violate due process and unlawfully enlarge their authority and jurisdiction when Americans point out that they have no liability for a particular tax or penalty.  For instance, below is the Treasury regulation pointing out the “persons” (meaning federal corporations as per Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)) against whom penalties may be applied.  We talk about this regulation later in question 3.1:

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 26, Volume 17, Parts 300 to 499]

[Revised as of April 1, 2000]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 26CFR301.6671-1]

[Page 402]

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE

Additions to the Tax and Additional Amounts--Table of Contents

Sec. 301.6671-1 Rules for application of assessable penalties.

…

(b) Person defined. For purposes of subchapter B of chapter 68, the term ``person'' 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.

This regulation clearly states that only federal corporations, federal partnerships, and employees of same can be held liable for payment of assessable penalties, and not natural persons.  When you call the IRS to point this out, they will mistakenly conclude that “includes” is used as a “term of enlargement” in the above definition.  The will say:

“26 U.S.C. §7701(c ) defines the term “includes” as a word of enlargement.  That means that it doesn’t define everything that is being talked about, and is only giving a few examples.  It could mean anything and it certainly includes you as a natural person.

Of course, we know that the above kinds of fraudulent statements are inconsistent with both the U.S. Congressional Research service (see the Congressional Research Service Report 97-59A at http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/CRS-97-59A-rebuts.pdf) and the U.S. Supreme Court (Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918); Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 414, 58 L.Ed. 285, 34 Sup.Ct. 136 (1913), etc) because both of these organizations have determined that:

1.        Income taxes are indirect excise taxes.  You must be in receipt of excise taxable privileges from the federal government to be liable for the tax.

2.        Only the Constitution can define “income” and not Congress, and it can only mean “corporate profit”.

3.        Because income can only mean “federal corporation profit”, then the only “persons” who can be liable for income taxes are federal corporations.

Based on the above analysis, the evasive IRS comment above is therefore really just a devious, fraudulent, and abusive power grab and attempt to illegally expand federal jurisdiction to tax.  IRS agents who use it, in effect, are saying:

1.  The law doesn’t mean what you think it means.  There is no way you can know or understand what the law really means, so give up trying.

2.  We are a society of men and not law.  Only I am qualified to know what the above definition means and you are wrong, nor am I required to offer you an explanation of why you are wrong, because you have no right to know.  You have no legal training and you can’t trust your own judgment.

3.  You will do what I say and quit asking questions or I will make your life miserable by illegally assessing penalties you don’t owe until you shut up.  I don’t care about your First Amendment right of free speech.  You will do what I say or be mercilessly abused by our organization.

Does the above totalitarian double-speak sound familiar?  We have compiled a few questions to illustrate the absurdity, illogic, and abuse of due process resulting from using the word “includes” in the “enlarging way” the IRS mistakenly does. 

Now lets examine the word “definition” found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423:

definition: (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423) A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term.  The process of stating the EXACT  meaning of a word by means of other words.  Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes."

PART A:  The question is, how can any definition found in the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) that uses the word “includes” define the “exact meaning” of the term if that word is to be used “expansively” or as a term of “enlargement”?  Below is a list of a few of the more important definitions that use this word:

·         26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9)  United States

·         26 U.S.C. 3401(c ) Employee

·         4 U.S.C. §110(d) State

If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “DEFINITIONS IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE THAT USE THE TERM ‘INCLUDES’ CAN’T DEFINE ANYTHING PRECISELY.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (5A): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

If the I.R.C. doesn’t clearly define what the law requires because it uses the word “includes”, then according to the U.S. Supreme Court, it must be declared “void for vagueness”.  This concept is part of the “void for vagueness doctrine” first advocated by the U.S. Supreme Court.  This doctrine is deeply rooted in our right to due process (under the Fifth Amendment) and our right to know the nature and cause of any criminal accusation (under the Sixth Amendment).  The latter right goes far beyond the contents of any criminal indictment.  The right to know the nature and cause of any accusation starts with the statute which a defendant is accused of violating.  A statute must be sufficiently specific and unambiguous in all its terms, in order to define and give adequate notice of the kind of conduct which it forbids.

The essential purpose of the "void for vagueness doctrine" with respect to interpretation of a criminal statute, is to warn individuals of the criminal consequences of their conduct. ...  Criminal statutes which fail to give due notice that an act has been made criminal before it is done are unconstitutional deprivations of due process of law.

[U.S. v. De Cadena, 105 F.Supp. 202, 204 (1952), emphasis added]

If it fails to indicate with reasonable certainty just what conduct the legislature prohibits, a statute is necessarily void for uncertainty, or "void for vagueness" as the doctrine is called.  In the De Cadena case, the U.S. District Court listed a number of excellent authorities for the origin of this doctrine (see Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451) and for the development of the doctrine (see Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, Williams v. United States, 341 U.S. 97, and Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223).  Any prosecution which is based upon a vague statute must fail, together with the statute itself.  A vague criminal statute is unconstitutional for violating the 5th and 6th Amendments.  The U.S. Supreme Court has emphatically agreed:

[1] That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law;  and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

[Connally et al. v. General Construction Co.,269 U.S 385, 391 (1926), emphasis added]

The debate that is currently raging over the correct scope and proper application of the IRC is obvious, empirical proof that men of common intelligence are differing with each other.  Section 3.16.1 of The Great IRS Hoax book (available FREE from http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm) entitled “Uncertainty of the Federal Tax Laws” is proof of the extent of the conflicts in interpreting the tax laws by the federal appellate courts.  For example, some people advocate definitions of "includes" and "including" which are expansive, not restrictive.  The matter could be easily decided if the IRC would instead exhibit sound principles of statutory construction, state clearly and directly that "includes" and "including" are meant to be used in the expansive sense, and itemize those specific persons, places, and/or things that are "otherwise within the meaning of the terms defined".  If the terms "includes" and "including" must be used in the restrictive sense, the IRC should explain, clearly and directly, that expressions like "includes only" and "including only" must be used, to eliminate vagueness completely.  Instead, they currently define the term “includes” and “including” using the expansive sense and then contradict their own definition in IRC section 61 by adding the phrase “(but not limited to)”.

All of this discussion leads to the conclusion that the Internal Revenue Code should have been declared “void for vagueness” a long time ago.

PART B:  Based on the above background on the Void for Vagueness Doctrine of the Supreme Court, why shouldn’t the entire Internal Revenue Code be declared “void for vagueness” because of its sheer size, complexity, and the obvious conflicts resulting from the fuzzy definitions created by the use of the word “includes”.  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “WE AGREE THAT THE I.R.C. SHOULD BE DECLARED VOID FOR VAGUENSSS.  IT IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO ADMINSTER FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY, AND TO CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY KNOW WHAT IT EXPECTS OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (5B): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

The definition of “employee” found in the Treasury Regulations is as follows:

26 CFR §31.3401(c ) Employee: "...the term [employee] includes officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a [federal] State, Territory, Puerto Rico or any political subdivision, thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.  The term 'employee' also includes an officer of a corporation."   

PART C:  What does the word “employee” found in 26 U.S.C. 3401(c ) Employee “include”?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “IT INCLUDES ONLY ELECTED OR APPOINTED POLITICAL OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (5C): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

PART D:  If the answer to the above is other than “elected or appointed officers of the U.S. government”, then where in the Internal Revenue Code or the Treasury Regulations in 26 CFR can this distinction be found, because it can’t be enforced unless it’s part of the law, since it would violate the Void for Vagueness Doctrine and .”  Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153 to reach any other conclusion.  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE LAW THAT DEFINES ‘EMPLOYER’.  I’M SIMPLY BEING ARBITRARY AND DOING WHATEVER YOU WILL LET ME GET AWAY WITH, EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THE LAW CLEARLY SAYS THAT INCOME TAXES ONLY APPLY TO ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (5D): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

PART E:  Now let’s have some fun with this controversy.  As we said earlier, the term “States” was defined as follows:

26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(10) State

The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

But since this definition uses the word “includes”, which is an a term of enlargement as per 26 U.S.C. 7701(c ), , then if we follow this illogic, “State” could mean anything, including China!  And if it doesn’t “include” China, how are we supposed to know and how can we be sure we aren’t breaking the law and living in constant fear of our government for breaking the law by not understanding what it means?  Who decides what it means and how do they decide?  After all, Black’s law dictionary defines “state” as follows:

State, n. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…..The organization of social life which exercises sovereign power in behalf of the people.  …In its largest sense, a “state” is a body politic or a society of men.

From the above, China fits perfectly the definition of “state” in Black’s Law Dictionary, so why can’t we “include” it and how do we decide what to include and what not to include if the term “includes” doesn’t actually define or enclose or embrace the exact meaning of a definition?  It therefore ought to be very clear that we have an arbitrary law on our hands from this question.

If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE LAW THAT DEFINES WHAT ‘STATE’ MEANS AND THERE IS NO WAY TO DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS IF IT USES THE WORD ‘INCLUDES’ IN THE DEFINITION.  THEREFORE, THE ONLY CONCLUSION A REASONABLE MAN CAN MAKE IS THAT THE WORD INCLUDES MUST INTRODUCE ALL THE TYPES OF THINGS IT ENCOMPASSES AND BY IMPLICATION IT MUST THEREFORE EXCLUDE ALL OTHERS, OR THE DEFINITION WOULD BE MEANINGLESS AND WOULD VIOLATE THE ‘VOID FOR VAGUENESS’ DOCTRINE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (5E): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

Federal Register Volume _____________  Date ___________________  Page # ___________

4.  Question (4): Definition of “foreign” With Respect to the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.)

This question is necessary because NOWHERE, in all 2,000 pages of the Internal Revenue Code which I have searched electronically and extensively is the term “foreign” or “foreign address” defined.  Why?  Because that is how the U.S. government maintains the deception that people are liable for income tax.  This subject is really interesting and enlightening and clarifies so much about the applicability of the tax code once you understand it.  First let’s start with the definition of “foreign” right from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of Law:

foreign:   not being within the jurisdiction of a political unit (as a state)

esp
: being from or in a state other than the one in which a matter is being considered

Example: a foreign company doing business in South Carolina
Example: a foreign executor submitting to the jurisdiction of this court
Example: a foreign judgment
(compare domestic)[1]

You will note that the reference in the legal definition of “foreign” is to a political unit, and NOT a country.  The U.S. Codes, title 26, is written by the government of the “United States” and applies only to the District of Columbia and territories and possessions of the United States over which the federal government is sovereign as per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.  This point was extensively documented earlier in question 2 and you were offered an opportunity to refute it.

With the above background out of the way, we are now left to consider the true legal meaning of the term “foreign”.  Since the legal dictionary definition of “foreign” means “not being within the jurisdiction of a political unit” and the political unit in question is the seat of federal government found geographically only in the District of Columbia and the federal possessions and territories and called the “United States”, then according to the Internal Revenue Code, all income that originates from outside the District of Columbia (or the federal zone) is FOREIGN INCOME and all the people outside this area who receive that income are living at a “foreign address”.  The IRS’ own publications confirm this.  In Publication 54, on page 12 of the year 2000 version says:

A “foreign country” usually is any territory (including the air space and territorial waters) under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.

[…]

The term “foreign country” does not include Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, or U.S. possessions such as American Samoa.  For purposes of the foreign earned income exclusion, the foreign housing exclusion, and the foreign housing deduction, the terms “foreign,” “abroad,” and “overseas” refer to areas outside the United States, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Antarctic region.

All entities mentioned above as being excluded from being foreign countries are “States” as far as the Internal Revenue Code is concerned and are areas over which the United States government has exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty.  Do you see the 50 states of the United States excluded from the above definition of “foreign country”?  No!  For the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code, the 50 sovereign states are “foreign countries” with respect to the U.S. Government!  This conclusion is also consistent with California’s definition of “foreign country” found in section 17019 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code:

17019.  "Foreign country" means any jurisdiction other than one embraced within the United States.

[see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=rtc&group=17001-18000&file=17001-17039.1]

Note that California’s definition of “United States is the same as the federal government’s.  Yes, the federal government does have limited subject matter jurisdiction within the several states, but they do not have territorial jurisdiction and are NOT sovereign over areas within the several states that are not federal territories or enclaves.  For instance, everything the federal government does with air space and territorial waters surrounding or above the states is controlled by elected representatives from our state who represent us and who will not be reelected if they don’t represent us adequately.  Therefore, the U.S. Government can’t be sovereign even over the areas they have exclusive jurisdiction if they can’t independently control who exercises control of those waters.  Once again, according to the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed”, so the people, and not the government, are the sovereigns, and they exercise their sovereignty by voting and serving on jury duty, which in turn indirectly controls everything that the U.S. government does on their behalf.  Ultimately, no government like ours can be wholly sovereign over anything because the people are the real sovereigns.  The supreme Court agreed with this view in Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1885):

"While sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, Sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yik Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370

See also Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 U.S. 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 18 U.S. 316, 404, 405. 

Interestingly, the 50 states of the United States of America qualify entirely and completely as foreign countries under the IRS’ own instructions.  That is why we can be “U.S. nationals” and legitimately file as nonresident aliens and still live in the 50 states, and many hundreds of thousands of people who do not wish to be federal citizens have done so legally.  Below are a few definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary, which confirms these conclusions:

Foreign government:  “The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition;  removed from the Sixth and Seventh Editions by a legal profession that wants to hide the truth and sell you into slavery to the U.S. government by unlawfully extending the jurisdiction for personal income taxes outside the federal zone.)

Foreign Laws:  “The laws of a foreign country or sister state.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Foreign States:  “Nations outside of the United States…Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.  The term ‘foreign nations’, …should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense.”  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Another way of looking at this is that the “United States” is a small geographic area within the geographic “United States of America” that is a “subcontractor” to the 50 states of the union, and all the states are legally “foreign” to the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government as far as the income tax laws are concerned.  The “contract” that binds the States to the federal government is the “U.S. Constitution”, the U.S. Codes, and the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).  That’s why Congress puts source rules for taxable income under section 861 within the following hierarchy in the tax code:

United States Code

   TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

      Subtitle A - Income Taxes

          CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES

             Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without  the United States

                 PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME

                    § 861. Income from sources within the United States.

Interestingly, Title 26 doesn’t even define the meaning of the phrase “foreign income” but does define “foreign corporation” and “domestic corporation”.  Even more interesting is the fact that the title of Part I under versions of the code prior to 1988 was “Determination of sources of income”. After that, Congress added the word “foreign” to hide the truth better.  We are then left to believe with the new title of this section and earlier discussion that “foreign income” is anything that either comes from a foreign corporation or from an individual or person residing anywhere outside of the “federal zone”, which is the District of Columbia and federal possessions.  We must conclude this because of the definition of the term “United States” in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and the fact that the federal zone is the only area over which the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction and is sovereign.  However, most people incorrectly fall back on the common definition of the term “foreign” found in the layman’s (nonlegal) dictionary, which only confuses the average person and deceives them into reaching the wrong conclusion.  The layman’s definition of “foreign” is:

Foreign:  1:  situated outside a place or country; esp: situated outside one’s own country. 2:  born in, belonging to, or characteristic of some place or country other than the one under consideration.[2]

Did you notice the BIG difference between the legal definition of “foreign” and the everyday, more common definition of “foreign”?  Of the two definitions of “foreign”, the correct definition is the legal definition and not the layman’s definition.  If you have learned anything by now, it should be that you should always use the legal definition and ignore layman’s dictionaries when reading the law or you will deceive yourself about the jurisdiction of the law.  Can you see how the IRS and Congress might want you to use or believe the layman’s version of the word instead of the legal version of it?  It would certainly benefit them from a tax collection standpoint!  If you think like most people mistakenly do that “foreign” is relative to your country instead of relative to the “United States” (District of Columbia), then you will think that Part I of the Internal Revenue Code doesn’t apply to you as a Citizen of the 50 United States with income from the 50 states!  You will therefore instead have to refer to section  61 of the IRC which talks about “gross income” as being any type of income and with no definition of the word “source” to go from.  And since Congress removed the pointer in section 61 of the IRC back to section 861 in about 1982, you won’t even think to look in section 861 to determine taxable sources of income! 

There’s a reason why the wording of the Internal Revenue Code hasn’t changed significantly since the code was enacted in 1921, because the law is very carefully and deceitfully crafted to cover-up and obfuscate the truth about income tax liability.  In the following sections and especially in our discussion of “taxable sources” or “sources”, keep this definition of “foreign” in the back of your mind so the meaning and significance of IRC Section 861 is clear!  The below court ruling helps clarify the meaning of the terms “foreign” and “domestic” and also explains why the Internal Revenue Code had to explicitly define the meaning of the term “foreign corporation” but not define the meaning of the word “foreign” (because that would spill the beans and shut down the whole federal income tax system for the hoax that it is!):

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”

N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287

Once again, we’d emphasize that the “void for vagueness” really applies here, and that the Internal Revenue Code ought to be nullified by the courts because of vagueness, on something as simple as the definition of “foreign income” or “foreign address”.  That term needs to be much better defined to prevent unnecessary litigation or misinterpretation, because absent a proper legal definition, the only thing we have to relate to that is defined is “foreign corporation”.  We are then lead to believe based on the above definitions that ALL income of U.S. citizens that originates from outside the District of Columbia  and other parts of the “federal zone” (foreign to the political unit of the “United States” federal government) is “foreign income”.  And our interpretation must stick, because according to the U.S. Supreme Court:

“Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.”  Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

PART A:  Is the territorial jurisdiction of the 50 sovereign states of the United States of America “foreign” as defined above with respect to each other and with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the federal United States (the government)/federal zone under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America (YES or NO)?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “YES.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (6A): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

PART B:  Do the sovereign 50 states qualify as “foreign countries” under the definition of such found in 26 CFR 1.911-2(h) (YES or NO)?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “YES.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (6B): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

PART C:  As “foreign countries”, is there any reason why an address outside of the federal United States cannot be used, for instance, as a “permanent residence” on an IRS W-8BEN form by a person who is not a “U.S. citizen” and is instead a “nonresident alien” and a “U.S. national”?  If you fail to respond or ignore the question, then your answer is “NO.  THERE IS NO REASON WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT AN ADDRESS OUTSIDE OF THE FEDERAL UNITED STATES AND INSIDE A SOVEREIGN STATE AS A ‘PERMANENT RESIDENCE ADDRESS’ ON AN IRS FORM W-8BEN PROVIDED BY A PERSON WHO IS NOT A U.S. CITIZEN AND IS A VALID NONRESIDENT ALIEN.”

RESPONSE TO QUESTION (6C): TITLE IN USC ___ Section ______ IR in CFR ____________

NARRATIVE RESPONSE:_________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________

5.  Conclusions

With all of the above legal conclusions clearly documented, I think it becomes very clear that as long as I do all the following, I have every legal basis to proceed with requesting to be treated as a “nonresident alien” who does not need a social security number registered on my account:

(1)     File with you an IRS form W-8BEN “Certificate of Foreign Status” and thereby proclaim myself a “nonresident alien”

(2)     Rescind my social security number and quit contributing or collecting from the system.

(3)     Live in the 50 states and not in any federal territory within any state.  This would put me outside of the “United States” as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701 (the Internal Revenue Code).

Then…I have every legal right to be treated as a nonresident alien and to have you honor my wishes regarding opening a new account without a social security number using a permanent address on nonfederal land in one of the 50 states, which is exactly what I am doing.

I’d like to remind you that if you believe you cannot honor my request, then I would respectfully request the following as legal justification from you:

• Citations from 26 U.S.C. that explain and define your definition of “foreign address” and which completely contradict the conclusions of law in this correspondence.
• Citations from 26 CFR that explain and define your definition of “foreign address” and which completely contradict the conclusions of law in this correspondence.
• Citations from u.S. Supreme Court rulings and Federal Appellate rulings that justify your position.
• A definition of “foreign address” from your own internal bank regulations.

Lastly, I hope that the ill-informed interpretation of the term “foreign address” by Mr. _________________ (branch manager name) at the Poway Branch can be quickly rectified by prompt action on your part.  I’d like to remind you that legal action is probable if you continue on the path of discrimination that I have witnessed from your organization to date and do not change your ways.  The basis in law for such action is found below:

18 USC §242 provides that whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

42 USC §1983 provides that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Warning, you may be in violation of Federal Law and persisting with your demand may lead to your arrest and/or civil damages! Also understand that the law provides that you can be held personally responsible and liable, as well as your company or agency.

You will note that nowhere on the attached enclosure (1), IRS Form W-8, does it say that the mailing address must be in a country other than the United States of America (which is what the 50 states are part of), and even if it did, the definition of “foreign” that we now know applies certainly includes my address within California (but not the State of California!).

I swear and affirm under penalty of perjury that the facts and assertions made by me in this correspondence are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and ability, and that I am a nonresident alien individual for the purposes of the income tax who has no obligation to pay U.S. income taxes, file federal returns, or otherwise report any earnings to the Internal Revenue Service, who has absolutely no jurisdiction over me as a Sovereign, Natural Born Citizen of the 50 states of the united States of America.

6.  Authentication of Your Answers

A place is provided below for the person at the financial institution who is completing this questionnaire to record their signature as an authorized agent of the financial institution they represent.  Your response to this questionnaire is invalid absent your signature and identifying information below being completely filled out.

In the absence of a response, it is presumed that you agree completely with the default answers provided under the Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-205.

__________________________________________________________

I swear under penalty of perjury that I am an agent of the financial institution named and that I have read and truthfully answered all questions to the best of my knowledge and ability.  I declare that I have been offered an opportunity and even been encouraged to seek legal advice in compiling my answers, and have been afforded an opportunity to answer any questions I might have related to this questionnaire and that I have had all my questions completely and satisfactorily answered prior to completing this questionnaire.  It is my belief that the answers provided by me are consistent with current federal income tax law as I understand it and as explained to me by the legal counsel of the institution that I represent.

Please legibly print information about yourself below:

Full Legal Name (including middle name):________________________________________

Street address:______________________________________________________________________________________

City:_____________ State:________________ Zip:__________________

Financial institution I am representing:___________________________________________

Date this questionnaire prepared:________________

Name of legal counsel consulted to answer my questions:_____________________________________

 

Signature:________________________________________________________________________