neo
Forum Replies Created
-
And so the ruse continued for decades. It was all just simply a matter of knowing who you were under the law, and declaring the proper status. But then, the transformation would continue. In 1967, nearly a generation after the truth about State Citizens’ “nonresident alien” tax status had been effectively buried, the Treasury introduced Form 1040NR.
Form 1040NR (1967) (See attached)
If one wanted to make known his “nonresident alien” tax status to the United States Treasury for Tax Year 1967, a “taxpayer” would have to submit this form. Otherwise, a Form 1040 would be a tacit admission under penalty of perjury of a federally-domiciled tax status.
For that remnant of the American population who may have partially understood this, a conundrum followed. The IRS deals only with taxpayers — not non-taxpayers. Thus, if a person had ever filed Form 1040 as a taxpayer, there was NO POSSIBILITY of claiming a “nonresident alien” non-taxpayer status without FIRST filing a tax return as a taxpayer utilizing Form 1040NR. Failing to do that caused a person’s tax status to remain on file with the IRS in the status that was established from the previous year (U.S. person). To unlock a non-taxpayer status, a “U.S. person” must FIRST file a tax return as a “nonresident alien” TAXPAYER. To wit:
26 C.F.R. 301.6109-1(g)(1)(i):
(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons— (1) General rule— A social security number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to the individual’s social security number.
Once a “nonresident alien” TAXPAYER status is established, then and ONLY then can one submit a W-8 without an SSN (if appropriate), and become a non-taxpayer. Again, that’s if it’s appropriate. Government payments are ALWAYS subject to the tax regardless of your tax status.
Of course, one must also change their status with the SSA from “U.S. Citizen” to “Legal Alien Allowed To Work” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. 422.110(a). But this is a different matter that is beyond the scope of this thread.
-
But in 1921, the transformation and exile of the people was nearly complete.
Form 1040 (1921) (See attached)
For the first time, we see on page 1 the following question:
Are you a citizen or resident of the United States?
How many Americans (including those domiciled in the 50 states) answered “Yes” to this question? Probably 99% or more. This simple affirmation told the IRS that the filing taxpayer “elected” to be within the SUB-CLASS of “United States citizen” with a federal domicile. This is an election, and one which gives the Congress exclusive legislative control over you. However, this in no way diminishes the locality of where the Federal Income Tax applies — rather, the issue is ONLY about the status of the taxpayer.
Keep in mind still . . . . that if you were a “United States citizen” with a domicile in one of the 50 states, you were a “nonresident alien” for Federal Income Tax purposes, and a simple “No” was all that was required to preserve that legal status, as both a “United States citizen” and a “nonresident alien” were both required to use this form. But HOW these two classes of individuals are taxed is a very different matter, and one that matters VERY, VERY much.
-
Now for the really suspicious evolution of the Form 1040: 1917-1920 (Four Years)
Forms 1040 (1917-1920) (See attached)
In these forms, all reference to tax status was removed, whether it be “United States citizen” or “nonresident alien.” Think, “out of sight–out of mind.”
But, during this period, both a “United States citizen” as well as a “nonresident alien” were still expected to use this form. The statuses were ignored, but the forms’ complexity was increased, and the description of what was to be taxed was more voluminous and imposing — probably to bamboozle and intimidate. Think of a magician distracting you with one hand (look at what all your taxed on), while sleight of hand is taking place simultaneously out of view with the other (pay no attention to the difference between a United States citizen and a nonresident alien).
Meanwhile, the Brushaber ruling was now becoming a distant memory — not to mention T.D. 2313 and its implications and revelations. You have to figure, the American public at large (like today) was oblivious to the differences between political citizenship and civil citizenship. Couple that with the “nonresident alien” and “United States citizen” omissions from these tax forms, and you have the truth being effectively and systematically relegated to the memory hole.
-
Then, in 1916, the Form 1040 underwent a little bit of a makeover.
Form 1040 (1916) (See attached)
On page 4, separate instructions for a “nonresident alien” were provided. To wit:
2. This return shall be made by every nonresident alien receiving any net income from sources in the United States. A nonresident alien individual may receive the benefit of the personal exemption only by filing or causing to be filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue a true and accurate return of his total income, received from all sources, corporate or otherwise, in the United States.
However, there was essentially no change in the operation of the Form 1040 from the 1913-1915 version. A “United States citizen” and a “nonresident alien” alike would still file this form.
-
Stija said:
1. The issue above did not deal with taxing authority of Congress, thus 26 USC 7701 is irrelevant first. Second, the United States in 26 USC 7701 is the constitutional United States because IRC is promulgated on Congress Art. I:8:1 constitutional authority thus IT CAN ONLY be the constitutional United States. [emphasis mine]
Remember, there are 3 “United States” meanings in the Constitution (50 states united, the nation, and the government), and then there is a Fourth definition from Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt — “the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends,” which is D.C., territories, and possessions while excluding the 50 States geographically.
7701(a)(9) suggests additional meanings beyond just the geographical. There is a governmental sense, as in “United States sourced payment.” There is a political sense, as in the nation of the “United States” — to be understood when ascribing a civil status to persons of foreign nationality (i.e. Resident Alien). But it is the geographical sense which allows domicilliaries of the 50 States to maintain a civilly foreign status with respect to “the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends,” which is the “United States” of 7701(a)(9) in its geographical sense.
If the “United States” of 7701(a)(9) included the 50 States politically as well as geographically . . . that would be redundant, and pointless. No . . . Congress acted intentionally and purposely by not explicitly naming the “50 States” in the definition, but allowing their presence to be added contextually when a political sense was necessary through the operation of the terms “includes” and “including” “when such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title” — i.e., keep it constitutional. Meanwhile, the terms “includes” and “including” preclude the 50 States’ presence in the geographical sense in order to provide for the same constitutional construction protecting the status election capability for the citizens of the 50 States. The construction is ingenious and purposeful. But, as the Supreme Court Justice stated to me, ” . . . very few understand it.”
[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.
[Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983)]
Congress could have very easily explicitly included the 50 States in 7701(a)(9) as they did in 26 USC 4612, yet they chose not to. They allowed the context and the operation of the terms “includes” and “including” to take care of that issue when dealing with the “United States” in its political sense (50 States within the same general class as those explicitly named), and the “United States” in its geographical sense (50 States not within the same general class as those explicitly named) — it’s just important to understand which meaning is needed and when, and then allow the statutory construction and subsequent interpretation to establish the proper legal meaning and boundaries.
-
Are you telling me that the 50 states IS the nation? If so, I disagree. The 50 states does not include the Federal government. The 50 states does not include D.C. And the 50 states does not include the territories, or possessions, or their citizens. No . . . 1. & 4. are most definitely not the same thing. The 50 states are just merely political subdivisions of the larger national body-politic. I thought you said the diagrams were correct. How can a tire be the same thing as a car when the tire constitutes the part of the whole — which is the car?
But again . . . I can agree to disagree. It’s ok. That’s what makes this all so challenging.
-
1. Is United States nation-union a political association/body of state citizens conferring powers to a national government over their geography?
No. The “United States” in its political sense is a nation comprising land, people, and governments. The federal governemnt was granted it’s authority by the people of the 50 states through the Constititution and their powers are clearly delineated in that.
2. I thought we agreed that the Uniter States geographically is comprised of: above in 1,D.C., and territorial possessions, did you change your mind?
No. There are 4 meanings I deal with. These are the four meanings elucidated by the SCOTUS in Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt. 1. The nation (a single, national body politic), 2. the geographcy over which the sovereignty of the Federal government extends (D.C., territories, and possessions — GEOGRAPHICALLY), 3. the Federal government itself, and 4. The 50 states united by and under the Constitution (50 bodies politic — each comprising geography, people, and government).
To recap:
1. ONE political body.
2. ONE geographical body comprising multiple statutory “States” in their geographical sense.
3. ONE Federal government.
4. FIFTY political bodies.
Again, Stija . . . I’m not confused. I understand you perfectly. I just don’t agree with you.
-
For matters of state law and constitutional state retained privileges, a u.s. citizen (14th Amend.) is a state citizen if residing within a state.
Agreed. But civil status is based upon domicile . . . not where I choose to reside. You already admited domicile and residence are not the same thing. So the Fourteenth Amendment residence has no bearing on this.
For all matters of law that were surrendered to the united states by the states, the u.s. citizen is a national u.s. citizen because of his domicile within the union-nation on state land.
How is one domiciled upon this theoreical “union-nation” land mass? There is no such thing as a national “union-nation” land mass that one can be domiciled upon. There is no legal basis for this anywhere. I understand how and why you have concluded this. I just don’t agree with it.
In both instances a political status and domicile within geography is required. The geography in first instance is the state, in the second it is the union-nation comprised of the 50 states who united into this union and conferred it powers.
Well . . . I think I’m tracking what you’re saying in the first sentence. Yes, if I am an American National, then American federalism allows me to make a domicile election which in turn permits my foreign civil status. Whereas if I am a Foreign National, then by virtue of my presence anywhere within the borders of any American civil jurisdiction, the Feds have SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION over me by virtue of my foreign political alien status . . . which also commutes my “alien” civil status. But this is a federally-sanctioned “alien” status — not one that State Citizens have the privilege of electing through domicile. And again, I don’t agree with your “union-nation” single land mass concept. I’m sorry . . . I just don’t agree.
The real question is why are you conflating u.s. citizenship with federal domicile?
Well, it depends on what you mean by “u.s.” and what you mean by “citizenship.” If you conclude (which I do) that the “u.s.” constitutes only the territory (geography) over which the Federal government exercises sovereignty (D.C., territories, and possessions — and NOT the geographies of the 50 states), and that “citizenship” is equivalent in meaning to domicile (which I also believe), then there is no conflation. What is actually happening is that you are saying the same thing two different ways. It’s apples and apples — not apples and oranges. All you have to do is clarify what “U.S.” you are talking about — political or civil. And all you have to do is clarify what “citizenship” you are referring to — political or civil. Once you qualify what you mean . . . the discussion becomes simple, because you can’t mix apples and oranges in this discussion. Now YOU can if you want to . . . and that’s ok. Again, I just don’t agree with it.
Are you inplying that IRC is only operative within federal territories per Art. IV:3:2?
Of course not. That’s absurd. And you know I don’t believe that. IRC applicability and my status election or separate issues.
Because if you believe so, I’ve got a bridge in San Francisco I can sell you…
Ha! That’s funny man! I’m actually in San Franciso now . . . and am looking at that bridge out my window. But that bridge is too liberal for me. I want a nice, conservative, pro-2d Amendment bridge! 🙂
-
One simple thing I would like to point out:
In both 26 USC 7701(a)(9) and 42 USC 1301(a)(2), the definitions of “United States” say ” . . . when used in a geographical sense.”
Questions for Stija:
1. What sense is it used in when it’s NOT used in a geographical sense?
2. If status for Art. I, Sec. 8 legislation is all predicated on the political sense of the “United States” (which is the nation), then what is the purpose of providing a geographical option? Wouldn’t that be superfluous?
The answers to these questions are:
Answer 1. Its principle, or political sense, pursuant to Texas v. White
Answer 2. The purpose of the geographical definition is to permit State Citizens (and yes United States political citizens) to maintain a domicile and thus, a civil status in their state’s own civil jurisdiction, allowing them to have an “alien” civil status with respect to the geography of the Federal sovereign.
This doesn’t mean that they are not subject to the legislation. They may or may not be. Yes, there are ABSOLUTELY two political capacities. But why are you addressing political citizenship statuses of State and National citizens when those issues are 100% irrelevant with respect to civil status?
Now, not that the “Circle Diagrams” are authoritative . . . but you said you understood them. You are talking about political citizenship in the nation, which embraces citizens within it’s POLITICAL JURISDICTION. But the issue is whether or not you are domiciled in the geographical “United States” which includes only the geography of the Federal sovereign — their domestic CIVIL JURISDICTION. The question is thus, which interior circle are you domiciled upon within the larger national circle? There is NOT one geographical entity in this nation, but there are 60 or more . . . depending on how you want to tally them up. This is why the diagrams were created . . . because the identically spelled words are very confusing, and the issue of civil status is one which lies inside of, but is separate from the issue of political status.
I think you’re conflating political and civil contexts . . . . just like the U.S. Attny is doing. I understand your position perfectly well. I understand your conclusion, and how you arrived at it. I just don’t agree with it.
Finally, I have had TWO federal judges tell me that a State Citizen can be a nonresident alien for income tax purposes . . . and one was a Supreme Court Justice. I dunno . . . call me crazy, but that’s a pretty reliable endoresement if you ask me.
-
What does political association with a state or nation have to do with civil status? Nothing. Civil status is based upon domicile ….thus geography is the issue.At that point….the two political capacities– state and national — are irrelevant. The issue then becomes: Where are you domiciled? This determines your status….and also has zero to do with the applicability of subject matter. The Feds have subject matter jurisdiction on the moon….or where ever. They do NOT drive my choice of domicile, thus it is an election in EVERY franchise they offer.
If status is irrelevant for I:8 legislation (or IV:3:2 legislation)….then WHY does the Treasury allow one to change their status? Why does the SSA allow one to elect a status on Form SS-5?
The answer then becomes obvious: Civil status is an election. Then you need to ask yourself how civil status is established for different classes of persons. For American Nationals…..under federal legislation it is en election of domicile. There is NOTHING that indicates otherwise.
-
OK . . . yes. I ASSumed you were speaking geographically. Yes, of course the states in their political sense, whether statutory or constitutional, include the people and their respective governments. So I grant you that.
And yes, I am a United States citizen politically through the Fourteenth Amendment. That, together with my allegiance to the nation commutes my nationality.
But, my civil status is determined through domicile. Which is a question of location and intent UPON the geography within the nation. My political citizenship is a separate issue. It’s an issue which relates ONLY to political bodies, whether state or national.
Civil citizenship is something other than political citizenship. Allegiance and political association are separate issues from that of domicile. Political associations and civil associations relate to political bodies and geography respectively. They are separate issues.
The Supreme Court has held this.
-
It is rather simple to understand once one concedes that the United States nation-union is geographically composed of D.C., the states, and the territorial possessions.
I don’t concede this though.
I maintain that the nation is composed of D.C., the states, and the territorial possessions AS WELL AS the People and the Federal government. See, you keep treating the so-called “nation-union” as geographical regions, when the geography is only a component of the nation. You’re conflating contexts.
My pride is not so big that I can’t admit that I’m wrong just because it would destroy my position. I just simply don’t agree with you. If you could convince me, I would file a motion to dismiss my lawsuit. But since I am not convinced, I’m pressing on with what I believe in. After all, it is my suit — thus, I have to believe in my position. If the judge dismisses my suit as frivolous, I will be the first to post it here on this forum.
The government has been asserting it is frivolous since the 3d of July, and to date, it has not been dismissed as frivolous. Time will tell.
-
We’re just chasing our tails now.
We have to agree to disagree and move on. I respect your knowledge and position — I just disagree with it.
I think territorial sovereignty is a separate issue to that of subject matter sovereignty.
Maybe others can chime in . . . but I doubt that will happen.
-
Stija,
Check out the following link:
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/009_statutes_at_large.pdf
Go to page 35 (of the statutes) — page 59 on the pdf, and read about the retro-cession of Alexandria County from D.C. back to the State of Virginia. Notice what it says about sovereignty over the territory.
-
But Stija, the issue is territorial sovereignty — not subject matter sovereignty.