neo
Forum Replies Created
Admin,
I understand all that. But I have a perspective from the FG/SEDM materials that may lead to a different conclusion.
“ALL functions of government are carried out through agency or public officers.”
We know the NRA is NOT the “taxpayer,” but the “res” is, that is . . . the “public office” which is the trustee of the Federal Corporation as defined in 28 USC 3002(15)(A). The “res” has always been a “res-ident” of DC. From the second the NRA signed on to the franchise . . . and when the NRA receives retirement income, his “res,” or strawman will in fact be receiving income from US, Inc., which is domiciled in DC, and will again interface as having payments “effectively connected with a trade or business” in retirement because the payments themselves come from a US source. If a NRA claims any taxable source income, as I understand it, he then becomes a “NRA Individual.” This is no bueno!!! How is the NRA going to receive taxable income? Answer: With some type of number attached to it! There is no way around this . . . no matter how much a NRA protests or submits affidavits, etc.
I see the dual-status as no big deal. Again, the strawman or “public office” is the taxpayer domiciled in DC, not the NRA. The NRA is filing for the strawman, not himself. The NRA, in theory should have nothing to submit on a 1040NR if his affairs are conducted properly. The only scenario I can see where he files a 1040NR is for a refund of erroneously withheld private-sector monies on a coerced W-4 or bogus W-9. Then he is claiming a return of property while in his NRA status. And this he should do in that NRA status.
But the “public office,” the strawman, the “res” and the “taxpayer” always were, and always will be resident in DC. The 1040 is being filed by the flesh and blood human who activates the strawman or the “res” to interface with the government. This is ok as I see it, and the NRA gives up no sovereignty in doing this, because it's not him. Are not the motions filed in litigation in “rem” v. in “personam?”
Furthermore, a dual-status filing shines a bright light on the duality that is so obviously present in our form of government. It shines a bright light on the strawman, and kills any frivolous tax protester labels, because this is all supported in the code and regs, and your not flat-out claiming blanket NRA status, which looks like, smells like, tastes like Ambort. This seems smart and IAW with all rules and regs. Remember, the “US Person must provide ITS number.” IT is the “res.” And the “res” is always domiciled in DC because of Fed Rule of Civil Procedure 17(:cool:. Heck, the “res” even has a SSN because ONLY “residents” are eligible. Yep, my strawman lives in DC . . . but I, the NRA do not. Keeping the two separate is of paramount importance. They need separate passports, bank accounts, everything.
Why is this thought process wrong? This seems to be 100% consistent with everything I have read in FG/SEDM. What doesn't jive is the following: The SSA says the SSN never goes away . . . it just changes status. Ok . . . fine. Let's say soldier boy retires, and continues for the next 20 years in the private sector. He severed the SS Trust IAW with the Path to Freedom, and has no number now, and the ITIN he used on active duty has long since been relegated to the memory hole. Uncle Sam is NOT going to make payments without a number . . . nor are they unlawful for demanding one (it's their franchise). Why can't the private sector Joe continue his life, and file his retirement income which as I understand is “effectively connected” because it comes from DC, with a 1040? He's not a tax protester . . . he's a NRA who served in the public sector through AGENCY, and during retirement, pays the tax on the benefits that AGENCY afforded him. Even in retirement, his AGENCY is domiciled in DC because of whence it came. This seems A-OK to me.
If ignorant private-sector payers create false allegations against him, he fights this in the NRA capacity. But under no circumstance does he fight US sourced money as a NRA. Any time he received 1 red cent, it was through agency and franchise enacted by said agency. This agency will always be present in DC, and hence a dual status seems more consistent with the teachings I have read.
Thoughts?
I know the position of this forum is to not help taxpayers . . . and I agree. I think the concern is to not help “taxpayers” evade taxes. And I don't believe anyone should evade their lawful duty (no pun intended). But, I think it beneficial to explore the full spectrum of the rules, for “taxpayers” and people “other than taxpayers.” As a matter of semantics, and law as we all understand it, consider the following scenario:
Let's say a NRA is engaged in a “trade or business” due to his affiliation with a part-time government job. The NRA also has a private aspect of his life. Now we know the NRA is not the “taxpayer,” but rather the “rem” is . . .which is his “public office.” That being said, the NRA is not a tax protester, but rather a consciencious, law-abiding American who wants to fulfill his lawful duty. This NRA has changed the status of the SSN unlawfully assigned to him to that of a NRA. He knows as a NRA he is not eligible for SS. But, because he has volunteered to engage in a “trade or business,” he obtains an ITIN for those activities. Of course the private sector activities of which he is involved are a non-issue because there is no withholding on a NRA not engaged in a “trade or business,” and this has been established on record with his submisson of a modified W-8BEN.
Now, when the NRA's “trade or business” franchise comes to an end, so too does the “rem,” which is the “public office” he held. The ITIN is no longer needed . . . and he goes about his merry way, living his life, and earning a living in the private-sector.
The NRA was involved in a “trade or business” for over 20 years, “supporting and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” and has rightfully earned a deferred pension from these activities. The NRA cannot collect this pension until he is around 60 years old.
Here's the question: Is this NRA actually occupying a dual-status as detailed in IRS Pub 515, Ch. 6? In the dual status portion of Ch 6 it says the following:
Quote:“You have a dual-status tax year when you have been both a resident alien and a nonresident alien in the same year. Dual status does not refer to your citizenship, only to your resident status in the United States. In determining your U.S. income tax liability for a dual-status tax year, different rules apply for the part of the year you are a resident of the United States and the part of the year you are a nonresident.”It seems like this is the only way to preserve the NRA status without becoming a “NRA Individual” across the board because of collecting federal retirement earnings which he rightfully and lawfully earned defending his country.
Think about it. He is adopting a lawful status as a “taxpayer” for the “public office,” the “rem” that he engaged in . . . and in fact, filing a 1040 with an ITIN, or maybe even theoretically a SSN for those activities while engaged in a “pubic office.”
But what about when this NRA is 60? He then begins to receive retirement income from the U.S. for his many years of faithful service. Even though he is no longer engaged in a “trade or business,” his U.S. sourced retirement check is in fact “effectively connected,” thus making the recipient into a “resident” if he receives it.
It seems to me the dual-status as outlined in Ch 6 of Pub 519 is the ONLY way to reconcile this, in fact, truly DUAL STATUS.
The “taxpayer” pays his lawful duty on his “trade or business” income with a 1040, because his “rem” is in fact a resident of DC. But, his private-sector status is reconciled with a 1040NR, and if in fact, his private-sector earnings were erroneously withheld by his payer, his claim for refund and corrections to any erroneously withheld monies would be indicated on the 1040NR portion of the dual status return.
I have not seen this addressed anywhere here, or on SEDM. This approach seems to be consistent with all laws and intent of the IRS materials.
Comments please by those more experienced.
I love it!! Count me in
My reply was a way of showing you I understand. 99% get offended. My skin is thick, as am very familiar with military breakdown and buildup.
I would like to think I can contribute something. I've certainly woken up A LOT of people. But like you said, few will take action.
Bing,
Thanks for the reply.
Firstly, I thought Famguardian and SEDM were separate ministries. Why do I need to comply with SEDM requirements when the two are not affiliated?
Secondly, I've noticed that all newbies get their “heads shaved with a cheese grater” when they first seek assistance or ask questions. It's edgy . . . I like it. And it's the same thing I do when I explain the income tax to colleagues. I understand the purpose is to stoke the fires of conviction and/or commitment — but I assure you, just because this is my first post, please don't underestimate my mental toughness or level of knowledge about SEDM's Path to Freedom. I know, you're thinking yeah right. Without disclosing who or what I am, I can assure you that I have been through more than you may experience in your life. But that being said, thank you for the gratuitous “pecker sanding!” Now let's build a relationship!
I'm not looking for a quick fix here. I am very well read on many tax freedom issues, and quite honestly find the SEDM/Famguardian material to be the only ones consistent and logical. I see it! And I get it. There are certainly some things that I continue to have questions on. Please understand, it takes people some time to see things clearly. Sometimes I'm amazed at the utter denseness of my fellow Americans when I try to explain the difference between a direct and indirect tax. It's at that moment that I think: What's the use?
I have in fact studied the particular municipal code aforementioned. Automobile and motor vehicle are not defined in the codes. Person also INCLUDES natural persons . . . so no tricks there. As for the SSN thing . . . I'm not sure, and I understand what you are saying, but this, at least on the surface seems to be outside of the scope of the municipal tax implications (yeah, yeah, I know). The city is just saying, you took delivery of the vehicle in this city, and you currently live in this city . . . you owe the “Use Tax.” It's nothing more than a use tax on expensive items of roughly 2%. I found the definition of “within the city,” and they say that a person's “legal address” is used to determine “residence,” but then “residence” and “legal address” are not defined. In some regards their code is so simple, I'm not seeing the tricks.
The only thing I've mentioned to him is that his domicile really is in another state, and in my mind, that's what they intend when they say “legal address,” but they never come out and say it.
I'm not looking for an 11th hour solution. We actually have some time here. I'm just looking for some ideas on this from some experienced members. My friend (and its really not me) is just waking up from the Federal Income Tax matrix, so I thought this might be a nice little “scrimmage” with taxing authorities on a smaller scale. In a lot of ways, the Fed Tax thing is so much easier to see. I'm trying to offer him some ideas and perspectives.
Because this city is within a sovereign Union state, part of me is inclined to believe that they can legitimately levy this tax. I'm looking for other perspectives on how to attack this.
I have my asbestos underwear on. Flame away!
p.s. I notice the members/posting crowd is pretty thin here. Maybe less barbs and more grace would foster a larger community. 99% of people fold up and cry when you get in their face a little. We need a cohesive, unified group of Americans who want to restore a righteous government. Let's respond with grace and gentleness, the way our Savior would. Just my 2 cents!
Thanks
