neo
Forum Replies Created
-
Admin,
Thanks for the reply. Yes . . . you are right. I do know all of that. However, I could have sworn that I had read something specific in Title 31 that flat out said something to the effect of, ” . . . interest received from U.S. Securities does not constitute income from a trade or business.”
I seem to remember something very straight forward such as in 26 USC 864, where it flat out said that “trading for one's own account for stocks and commodities did NOT constitute a trade or business.” That one leaves people pretty shocked — it's an attention getter!
You're right . . . I know all of this inside and out. It's just that it's always nice to have a “no-brainer” copy of the code or regs to hand the “gate-keepers” at the banks or financial institutions. It seems that they are not capable of connecting even two dots together . . . so if it is not spelled out in certain terms, then they just refuse to think for themselves . . . ” after all . . . if this were all true, I would have heard of this by now.” Or, “Sir, I've worked at the bank for 25 years . . . believe me, I know what I am doing.”
And my favorite . . . “Well sir, that's legaleze, and that's not for us to determine, that's for the lawyers to decide.”
You know how people are! It's pathetic.
-
Ok . . . nothing but crickets!
How about this — I seem to remember reading somewhere (I can't find it now) that receipt of interest by a nonresident alien does NOT constitute a “trade or business.”
I would be very appreciative of any help by anyone on this forum in helping to corroborate the precise location of the regulatory language. Or was it statutory? Or am I recalling something that really isn't there?
The bank clerk seems to think that a SSN/ITIN must be submitted in order to be paid interest. I thought I had read that somewhere in 31 CFR. I am familiar with 103.34, and 306.10's footnote. But is there language somewhere that specifically exempts interest for a nonresident alien NOT engaged in a trade or business?
-
Admin,
It's my feeling that the Health Care Law is constitutional because it is consensual. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a “nonresident alien” is allowed the option of not participating, while a “U.S. person” must participate. Therein lies the voluntary and consensual nature of the franchise.
1) Either claim your true and correct status as provided for in the Constitution — “nonresident alien”
or,
2) Elect to be treated as a “lawful permanent resident,” and thus, a “U.S. person” — someone who is subject.
-
I think I feel a wave building!!!
-
Admin,
This is something that goes 'round and 'round in my head.
The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the People from a tyrannical government. Of course, we also know that if you ever pull a weapon on any officer . . . that's the end of it. It's either going down right then and there . . . or it's going down within minutes later when the rest of them show up.
It says in Matthew 26:52:
Quote:“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”So, in the face of tyrannical marauders, as a Christian man, I should allow myself the temporary affliction. My flesh cries, 2nd Amendment! What is a Christian man or woman to do in light of the 2nd Amendment. In a righteous scenario, is a Christian permitted to shoot? If no . . . is a Christian man or woman really permitted by the faith to join the military?
Under the New Covenant . . . there seems to be no room whatsoever for violence, and thus, the 2nd Amendment and Military Service are not really options for a Christian.
Does anyone see my dilemma? I am very interested in some perspectives out there. I'm not at all afraid to lose my life in defense of what I know is right.
-
I just stumbled across this video montage by Dave Champion. In it he discusses a recent MA Supreme Court Case whereby the State Supreme Court of Massachusetts declared that the rights imputed by the 2nd Amendment did NOT apply to 14th Amendment Citizens.
Now I have heard arguments both ways. I have heard that the 14th Amendment created a special “Federal Citizen.” I personally don't believe this. And then there is the school of thought that the 14th Amendment simply created a body politic called “the Union.”
Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheDaveChampionShow#p/a/u/0/WVvPuQadrlQ
I'd be interested in what others read into this. He seems to think the Supreme Court will overturn the MA Supreme Court decision, which would imply that there is nothing sinister associated with 14th Amendment Citizenship.
-
Admin,
I understand ALL of that. But here's the question:
Can D.C., acting as a Municipal Body Corporate, simply directly tax a profit of ANY TYPE from the labor of a USVI “citizen” on the USVI? Again, this is presuming he was born on and domiciled on the USVI the whole time.
I'm not talking about the Constitution. Forget about the Constitution, because it is N/A for a Citizen of the USVI. I'm not talking about a “trade or business” or a “U.S. sourced payment.”
I'm talking about a direct tax just like King George III would levy on his subjects. Does D.C. have the legal authority to tax that way in USVI and against USVI “citizens”?
Y/N?
Thanks
-
I'm pretty sure you missed my point/inquiry. It seems like it from your response, so I'll try to rephrase.
Can the Feds levy a direct non-apportioned tax on all that comes in on someone earning personal payments on Federal Territory which is NOT afforded protection by the Constitution?
If this is irrelevant, then Hendrickson is correct and the “nonresident alien” issue is moot.
You may think many of my inquiries are old, tired, rehashed, or whatever . . . . but I'm simply trying to more fully comprehend and analyze the method behind the madness of the IRS more fully, or from a different perspective. Remember, you're years ahead of many of us here, so is not a fresh or new perspective possibly fruitful?
Do all Fed territories have protection of the Constitution? Answer: NO!!! D.C. does — USVI does NOT!
If this is the case, then the limitation that a direct tax must be apportioned is a restriction that ONLY applies to those Fed Territories with constitutional protection. USVI does NOT have this protection, thus the Feds can levy a direct, non-apportioned tax on 'all that comes in.'
Remember? Context is everything! In the context of a non-constitutionally protected Federal Territory, does the Fed not have the authority to tax like a 'British Crown colony' on “income,” with the meaning of “income” and the limitations on the tax thereof dependent on venue, activity, and of course . . . . context?
The term “United States” changes meaning based on constitutional contexts. So too can “income” can it not?
-
I find it interesting that so many “Lawmakers” are referring to the new Health Care Bill as unconstitutional. If I understand it correctly, the Health Care Plan proposed is just like any of the other franchises offered by the Government — mandatory for their citizens, and optional for “nonresident aliens.”
How come nobody is picking up on this? This seems so blatantly obvious to me! There is so much legal language out there re: “nonresident aliens.” Do people really believe all of this legal language is for foreign nationals?
I also like when “Lawmakers,” or talking heads such as Glenn Beck, or even Judge Napolitano (who I like), inquire as to where the Federal Government gets the authority to do what they do. The answer is always the same: Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. The Government can create as many contracts and franchises as it likes (other Property), and tax and regulate them as they see fit. Through IV:3:2, their power is unlimited, so long as people continue giving consent. What's troubling is that they will soon be squeezing out any private-sector competition, and it will be the only game in town.
-
In view of our recent conversations regarding context, a new reality has hit me with regard to the legal “terms” used within Federal Law. First, I had to understand how their little tricks with the terms “includes and including” work. Then, I had to understand fully the 3 different definitons of the term “United States.” Now I have learned that context must also be considered.
Now, in order for the Feds to illicit consent when authority is NOT present, they construct definitions which lead the uneducated to presume a meaning that in fact is not really there (No 50 Union states present but it looks like it in the definition). Likewise, so as not to alert the reader to the difference, legitimate authority, when it DOES exist, is projected using similar appearing terms which in fact, in that instance, do have the meaning that many would assume, ie, the 50 Union states. A prime example of that is illustrated in the thread about Consular Report of Birth Abroad, where in that context, they are referring to the 50 Union states because the topic is “nationality” within the body politic, and not municipal “citizenship” or domicile.
So, with that being said, the Census is something to be affected upon the Citizens of the 50 Union states, and thus, the term “resident” in that context, as well as “U.S. Citizen” may not impose any infirmity. The meaning of the term “resident” is predicated on the meaning of the word “State” as presented in Black's Law Legal Dictionary. Thus, within the subject of the Census, a constitutionally mandated operation, a “resident” or “U.S. Citizen” describes a “resident” in a Union state, and a Citizen of the Union.
I of course would not provide any information beyond the number of occupants in the dwelling of question. But is disregarding the Census all together really warranted or justified?
I read the SEDM memo on the subject. It just seems to me that it may be errant to conclude that the authority to collect information extends only to the Federal Zone. Am I missing something?
-
'brazosdedios' wrote on '15:'neo' wrote on '13:'brazosdedios' wrote on '11:
In fact, is there even anything being certified without a signature? Would it be necessary to change the certifications from the standard IRS form W-9?
brazosdedios,
A W-9 is for a “United States person,” which is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(30) as a “citizen” or “resident” of the “United States.” The “United States” as defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) does NOT include the 50 Union states. Are you domiciled or “resident” in the District of Columbia or any of the Federal “States” so defined in 4 USC 110(d)? If not, then the W-9 is a moot point. Perhaps a modified W-8BEN would be more appropriate for you.
mm, maybe so but I was using the modified W-9 that states “I am NOT a US person.”
There is such a thing! It's called a W-8!!! It's to be submitted by one who is NOT a US person. Of course there are variations of the form now. The IRS-issued W-8BEN has damaging presumptions built into the form. There are substitute forms available that don't have those damaging presumptions.
-
'brazosdedios' wrote on '11:
In fact, is there even anything being certified without a signature? Would it be necessary to change the certifications from the standard IRS form W-9?
brazosdedios,
A W-9 is for a “United States person,” which is defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(30) as a “citizen” or “resident” of the “United States.” The “United States” as defined in 26 USC 7701(a)(9) does NOT include the 50 Union states. Are you domiciled or “resident” in the District of Columbia or any of the Federal “States” so defined in 4 USC 110(d)? If not, then the W-9 is a moot point. Perhaps a modified W-8BEN would be more appropriate for you.
-
Quote:3. The term “United States citizenship” is nowhere made equivalent to the phrase “citizen and national of the United States” as used in 8 USC 1401. It is a violation of due process to PRESUME they are the same.
I agree with this statement. That being said, it is therefore also logical to conclude that it is possible that the phrase “U.S. Citizen” as it appears in “Block 10.” of a DS-11 passport application, or the phrase “I am a citizen or non-citizen national of the United States…” within the jurat, could in fact be referring to the constitutional “United States” and not the statutory “United States.”
The second-best thing one could hope for would be the affirmation from the State Department as to whether or not the phrase “U.S. Citizen” on the DS-11 and the reference to the “citizen” in the jurat of the DS-11 have the same meaning as “national and citizen of the United States” pursuant to 8 USC 1401. This should be easy enough for them to answer! It seems like a pretty straight forward question to me.
Of course the best thing would be for them to just grant an endorsement that read:
“The bearer of this passport is a non-citizen national.”
-
Admin,
Ok, thanks!!! That quick “pointer” to Title 4 was very helpful! I see now how they all have to work in tandem, and that it is imperative to have a solid working knowledge of the Constitution and the limited powers so that these self-serving government statutes can be taken in their proper context. I reviewed the article on Famguardian about Federal Reporting Requirements, and how with regard to money, the Federal Government only has very limited powers, and that the rest of the Bank Secrecy Act provisions apply to “domestic” banks. That makes sense. I now can use the term “State” from Title 4 in conjunction with the intentionally vague definition in Title 31.
So here is my final question on this topic. And I just want to be able to have an answer for any denying “gatekeeper” who wants to block my efforts due to his unwillingness to accept my declaration due to what he/she “has been told.”
With regard to the following definition from 4 USC 110(d):
Quote:(d) The term ''State'' includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
How is the term “includes” to be taken within the context of Title 4? I think it is to be taken as a term of enlargement, but only within the context of things in the same general class per the maxim of noscitur a soccis. And if the term “includes” is not defined within the context of Title 4, then what authority does one have to convey its proper meaning to someone else? The “inclusio unius” maxim? The Websters dictionary? This particular instance regarding the term “includes” is not specifically defined with regard to Title 4. The “Includes and Including” Memo does a great job of conveying the concept with regard to 26 USC 7701(c ), and of course there is plenty of case law on that as well. But what about “includes” in 4 USC 110(d)?
-
Quote:(9) “United States” includes a department, bureau, or other agency of the United States of America.
(10) “Week” means seven consecutive days.
(11) “Written” includes any representation of words, letters, symbols, or figures.
(12) “Year” means 12 consecutive months.
(13) “Includes” and “including” are terms of enlargement and not of limitation or exclusive enumeration, and use of the terms does not create a presumption that components not expressed are excluded.
Examining the definition of “United States” above in item (9), and considering the incredibly broad definition of “Includes” and “including” above in item (13), does the principle of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis apply equally to such a broad and liberal definition, or does the fact that they go out of the way to NOT limit “includes” and “including” preclude these interpretive principles from applying?
I would say those principles still apply. Does anyone else have a different perspective?