Proof of Facts: Why the “citizen” the income tax is imposed upon is NOT a political citizen or NATIONAL, but a DOMICILED citizen

1. The income tax is first imposed upon citizens, residents, and nonresident aliens in the regulation at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 and NOWHERE in the statute it implements at 26 U.S.C. §1.

2. The citizen “LIABLE TO” and not “LIABLE FOR” the income tax is described as:

26 C.F.R. § 1.1-1 – Income tax on individuals.

(c) Who is a citizen. 

Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen. For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481–1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien.

3. The criteria is: “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to ITS jurisdiction”.

4. The term “United States” links to the statutory geographical definition in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) and does not expressly include states of the Union and therefore purposefully EXCLUDES them.

5. This phrase “For OTHER rules government the acquisition of citizenship” implies that these are NOT the rules pertaining to THIS citizen who the tax is imposed on. Otherwise it would have same “THE rules governing” rather than “OTHER RULES governing”.

6. The Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459) mentioned does not describe or reference Fourteenth Amendment citizens within the exclusive jurisdiction of states of the Union, so they are “purposefully excluded” per the rules of statutory construction.

7. The only “citizen” mentioned in the above Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401–1459) is at 8 U.S.C. §1401, which invokes the language “subject to THE jurisdiction” rather than “subject to ITS jurisdiction”. Therefore, adding a qualifier to the end of this type of citizen in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) that says “subject to ITS jurisdiction” would be redundant if “subject to THE jurisdiction” and “subject to ITS jurisdiction” meant the same things. Therefore they are not equivalent.

8. The U.S. Supreme Court defined “subject to THE jurisdiction” as meaning POLITICAL jurisdiction and NOT LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction. To wit:

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment, is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still existed and was recognized as an Indian tribe by the United States, who had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a State, but who did not appear to have been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen, either by the United States or by the State, was not a citizen of the United States, as a person born in the United States, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the clause in question.

“That decision was placed upon the grounds, that the meaning of those words was, “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance;”

[United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 – Supreme Court 1898]

So “subject to THE jurisdiction” in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment means POLITICAL jurisdiction, not LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.

9. Similar language to the Fourteenth Amendment is used to describe the TERRITORIAL “national and citizen” of the national government under 8 U.S.C. §1401, and thus must be interpreted in the same context as POLITICAL only. In fact, we allege that the ENTIRE Title 8 of the U.S. Code is POLITICAL law, not CIVIL law. The title is called “ALIENS and NATIONALITY” for that reason.

10. POLITICAL law differs from CIVIL law or LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction in that:

10.1. POLITICAL law regulates only the POLITICAL status of the people it describes. It does not otherwise impose or enforce civil obligations of any kind.

10.2. POLITICAL law is NON-TERRITORIAL and applies ANYWHERE, and therefore has nothing to do with DOMICILE.

10.3. POLITICAL law is based on NATIONALITY and ALLEGIANCE alone.

10.3. Real constitutional courts cannot entertain “political questions”. See Luther v. Borden. Thus, they cannot enforce CIVIL obligations in the context of POLITICAL statuses.

10.4. CIVIL LAW and CIVIL LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction originates from DOMICILE and is always TERRITORIAL. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 acknowledges that the capacity to sue or be sued UNDER THE CIVIL LAW originates from DOMICILE, not POLITICAL STATUS or NATIONALITY.

10.5. POLITICAL jurisdiction represents a type of NATIONAL membership based on birth or naturalization.

10.6. CIVIL/LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction implies a MUNICIPAL membership based on LOCATION of domicile and physical presence in the place one claims domicile.

10.7. The TWO types of membership are MUTUALLY exclusive and non-overlapping.

10.8. NATIONALITY and ALLEGIANCE are not privileges within a constitutional state. They are rights that cannot be taken away without your consent, as admitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 US 253 – Supreme Court 1967

11. Mere NATIONALITY alone is INSUFFICIENT in every political jurisdiction to actually participate in the body politic. This is because:

11.1. You cannot register to vote in any jurisdiction without a CIVIL DOMICILE that confers LEGISLATIVE jurisdiction.

11.2. You cannot participate as a jurist without being a RESIDENT subject to the CIVIL laws. Jury pools are derived from state driver license databases that are based on RESIDENT ID.

11.3. VOTING is a PRIVILEGE that can be REVOKED, not a RIGHT. That’s why they call it the “elective franchise”. Most states outlaw voting for convicted felons, for instance.

12. We cover POLITICAL law and POLITICAL jurisdiction in:

Political Jurisdiction, Form #05.004
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/PoliticalJurisdiction.pdf

13. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance” in Minor v. Happersett.

“Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.”

[Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 – Supreme Court 1875]

HOWEVER:

13.1. One can have allegiance without actually WANTING any kind of protection.

13.2. One can have allegiance without wanting or having to pay for CIVIL STATUTORY protection connected with domicile or residence.

13.3. Some method of consenting to the protection is required. That consent is domicile or residence. See:

Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

13.4. If this isn’t how it ACTUALLY works, we are all SLAVES, because we have to pay for protection we don’t ant.

14. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that the ENTIRE basis for income taxes within every state of the Union is DOMICILE, not NATIONALITY. See:
Lawrence v. State Tax Commission, 286 U.S. 276 (1932); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10241277000101996613

15. The U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that an income tax in the District of Columbia functions EXACTLY like a state income tax, and thus must also be based on domicile. See:

“Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317, 5 Wheat. 317, 5 L.Ed. 98, was an action of trespass (or, as appears by the original record, replevin) brought in the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia to try the right of Congress to impose a direct tax for general purposes on that District. 3 Stat. 216, c. 60, Fed. 17, 1815. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in [****32] one as legislating  [*260]   for the States; in the other as a local legislature for the District of Columbia. In the latter character, it was admitted that the power of levying direct taxes might be exercised, but for District purposes only, as a state legislature might tax for state purposes; but that it could not legislate for the District under Art. I, sec. 8, giving to Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, imposts and excises,” which “shall be uniform throughout the United States,” inasmuch as the District was no part of the United States.  It was held that the grant of this power was a general one without limitation as to place, and consequently extended to all places over which the government extends; and that it extended to the District of Columbia as a constituent part of the United States.  The fact that Art. I, sec. 20 , declares that “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective numbers,” furnished a standard by which taxes were apportioned; but not to exempt any part of the country from their operation. “The words used do not mean, that direct taxes shall be imposed on States only which are [****33] represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to States, shall be apportioned to numbers.” That Art. I, sec. 9, P4, declaring that direct taxes shall be laid in proportion to the census, was applicable to the District of Columbia, “and will enable Congress to apportion on it its just and equal share of the burden, with the same accuracy as on the respective States. If the tax be laid in this proportion, it is within the very words of the restriction. It is a tax in proportion to the census or enumeration referred to.” It was further held that the words of the ninth section did not “in terms require that the system of direct taxation, when resorted to, shall be extended to the territories, as the words of the second section require that it shall be extended to all the [**777] States. They therefore may, without violence, be understood to give a rule when the territories shall be taxed without imposing the necessity of taxing them.”
[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

Note that the above says the tax is NONGEOGRAPHICAL and that it “extends wherever the GOVERNEMNT extends”, NOT THE GEOGRAPHY extends. Thus, it’s a tax on offices and thus property WITHIN the government including “citizen” and “resident”. BUT, like any income tax, it is upon the DOMICILE of the office in the statutory geographical United States, which IS geographical. It’s NOT a tax on the domicile of the OFFICER or the volunteer filling the office. Its a tax on the OFFICE, which is always domiciled at the SEAT of government under 4 U.S.C. §72. These facts are further explored in:

Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 15.2
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm#15.2_Geographical_definitions

16. The STATUTORY geographical “United States” INCLUDES the District of Columbia, which by the way is the ONLY remaining internal revenue district they can enforce within. See 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10). Thus, the tax must be based on domicile as admitted in Downes.

17. If you want to say that the “citizen” upon whom the income tax is imposed in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is ONLY a POLITICAL “citizen” having nationality and allegiance, but NOT a CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen”, how then do you propose to be in a condition of birth in a nation as a “national” WITHOUT any civil connection including eligibility to vote or serve on jury? Until you can answer that question, you’re promoting slavery.

“To make payment of poll taxes a prerequisite of voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and, save as restrained by the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 170 et seq. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 664-665. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 37-38. Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 362. The privileges and immunities protected are only those that arise from the Constitution and laws of the United States and not those that spring from other sources. Hamilton v. Regents, 293 U.S. 245, 261.

[Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937)]

18. NATIONALITY, national, and allegiance are not privileges AFTER they are conferred. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court held in Afroyim v. Rusk. Voting and jury service, which are the ESSENCE of actual PARTICIPATION in the body politic, ARE privileges.

19. Title 26 is CIVIL law. It only acquires jurisdiction through domicile per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. All the terms are CIVIL, not political. Title 8 is POLITICAL law dealing with nationality and alienage, not CIVIL law dealing with civil obligations. It doesn’t impose obligations like civil law does. You can’t mix POLITICAL law and CIVIL law together.

Our definition of “statutory citizen” is entirely consistent with the above: https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.17._Statutory_Citizen

20. You can’t MIX CIVIL law and POLITICAL law together. Either the “citizen” referenced is POLITICAL and a NATIONAL, or it is CIVIL and based on domicile as a CIVIL “citizen**+D”. It can’t be both.

21. Since an obligation and liability is imposed in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c), then it can’t be POLITICAL law, because that is not what POLITICAL law does. It only regulates POLITICAL STATUSES.

22. Since real courts can’t rule on political questions and you allege that the citizen is a POLITICAL status, then you are violating the political questions doctrine of the U.S. Supreme Court to assert that the “citizen” the income tax is imposed upon is a POLITICAL citizen rather than ONLY a DOMICILED citizen.

23. Even 26 U.S.C. §873(b)(3) recognizes “nationals of the United States” as nonresident aliens. Thus, the term “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) CANNOT mean NATIONALITY alone. It has to include something MORE, and that thing is DOMICILE.

24. 26 C.F.R. §1.1(c) is therefore not a defense to this conundrum you create by saying that the citizen the income tax is imposed upon is a POLITICAL citizen and a NATIONAL instead of a CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen” because of the reasons given above.

25. The only reason you would want to take the position as an American national that you ARE the “citizen” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1 is that you don’t want to be backed into the corner of having to prove a negative, which is that you are NOT the “citizen” mentioned, which we know is very difficult. We sympathize with that impulse because it goes against the grain of patriotic Americans to say that they are NOT ANY kind of citizen mentioned in any national law, even though technically they are nonresident to NATIONAL government jurisdiction and therefore NATIONALS but not CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizens**+D”. This is proven in:

Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.046
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf

Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm

26. We understand the need for simplicity in defending the claim that one is a nonresident alien and YET an American national. However, claiming the “citizen” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) includes state citizens while claiming that the “citizen” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) is a CIVIL/DOMICILED citizen**+D is inconsistent and looks really bad.

26.1. They are the SAME entity, and both are CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizens**+D”.

26.2. The “United States” mentioned in the definition of “U.S. person” is the SAME GEOGRAPHICAL “United States” as the one mentioned in the definition of “citizen” at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c). And since they are BOTH geographical, they are both based on DOMICILE. The link to “United States” in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is completely consistent with these conclusions.

27. The fact that 26 U.S.C. §2209 identifies citizens of Puerto Rico as:

 A decedent who was a citizen of the United States and a resident of a possession thereof at the time of his death shall, for purposes of the tax imposed by this chapter, be considered a “nonresident not a citizen of the United States” within the meaning of that term wherever used in this title, but only if such person acquired his United States citizenship solely by reason of (1) his being a citizen of such possession of the United States, or (2) his birth or residence within such possession of the United States. 

Simply means that the “citizen” they are recognizing the the “citizen” in the code is a volunteer and that even in places where there ARE 8 U.S.C. §1401 citizens, these people are not “volunteers” for the office of “citizen” by default if they don’t want to be.

IN CONCLUSION:

Claiming that the “citizen” upon whom the income tax is imposed is a POLITICAL citizen rather than a CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen**+D” is a gross oversimplification that only misleads people and makes you look like a tax dodger by choosing nonresident alien status.

A better way to approach this issue and still avoid having to defend why one is NOT the CIVIL/DOMICLED “citizen**+D” mentioned is how we do it in the following form:

1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf

Here is the language from the above form:

11. WARNING NOT TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FOR UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME OR FRIVOLOUS RETURN

6.  I do NOT claim that I am exempt or excluded from tax because of my civil status, whether citizen, resident, nonresident alien, taxpayer, person, etc.  Instead, I claim that any civil status mentioned in the Internal Revenue Code to which civil statutory obligations DIRECTLY attach must be VOLUNTARY and avoidable, because the Thirteenth Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude everywhere in the COUNTRY, not just within states of the Union.  International laws also outlaw human trafficking and slavery everywhere in the WORLD.  The only civil status to which civil statutory obligations do NOT DIRECTLY attach is that of “nonresident alien”, and as a free man or woman who does not consent to be a slave or a peon (paying off endless mountains of public debt) or a victim of human trafficking, that is the only civil status I can reasonably consent to without violating my duties as God’s Trustee.  1 Cor. 7:23.  It would be fraud to claim otherwise.  See the following for exhaustive proof that civil statutory obligations (and taxation that implements them) are voluntary and avoidable: Lawfully Avoiding Government Obligations Course; https://sedm.org/LibertyU/AvoidGovernmentObligations.pdf.

To summarize what is REALLY going on:

1. The income tax is upon a citizen and resident and person office or civil status.
2. These statuses are legislatively created by Congress and therefore their property. See:
   https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/PowerToCreate.htm
3. Congress can reach their property legislatively wherever it is found, but they must control the person in possession to control the property. Those who are nonresident aliens can’t be controlled.
4. The office is exercised WITHIN the IRS and WITHIN the Treasury in D.C. and works for the Secretary of the Treasury.
5. The office has a domicile in the District of Columbia “and not elsewhere” per 4 U.S.C. §72.
6. The OFFICE and the OFFICER who consensually occupies it have SEPARATE domiciles. This is recognized in 26 C.F.R. §301.7701(b)-2.
7. The obligation of the office to pay a tax first originates in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and NOT in the statute it implements. Thus, it must work for the Secretary of the Treasury.
8. Anyone who VOLUNTEERS for the office becomes surety for it and acts in effect as a “resident agent” for the office. State corporations and LLCs work exactly the same: They all need a “resident agent” even if the choses of action for the corporation are made out of state or out of country.
9. The tax is on the DOMICILE of the office, not upon that of the OFFICER.
10. If you don’t want to volunteer for an office, then choose a status to which no civil statutory obligations attach, such as nonresident alien.
11. Once nonresident alien is selected as one’s tax status:
    11.1. The only thing they can enforce against beyond that point is PROPERTY owned by the nonresident alien PHYSICALLY situated in the statutory geographical “United States”.
    11.2. The only thing that can be taxed beyond that point is PROPERTY paid to the nonresident alien for which a reserved property interest has been identified in the I.R.C., such as 26 U.S.C. §861(a)(8) in the case of Social Security.
    11.3 Any other type of taxation involving transactions between private parties would be a direct interference with the right to contract of the parties, in violation of Article 1, Section 10.

The above description is the ONLY thing completely consistent and coherent with itself and everything else in this article. Anything else conflicts with itself and violates the law of non-contradiction must be a LIE at worst or a mistake at best.

These facts are proven in:

1. How State American Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, form #08.024
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf
2. Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
3. Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
   https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf

For a withholding form on our site consistent with the above article, see:

W-8SUB, Form #04.231
https://sedm.org/Forms/04-Tax/2-Withholding/W-8SUB.pdf

The hierarchy goes as follows (narrow class to broad class):

1. Property/office in DC;

2. U.S. (national) jurisdiction emanates from DC;

3. National citizens can participate.

Or, if you start with the reg (broad class to narrow class):

3. National citizens (come one, come all. You can stay where you are if you would like–we have the property in DC);

2. U.S. national jurisdiction (occurs throughout the 50 States and DC–art. I, sec. 8 subject matter–“no new powers of taxation”);

1. Property/office in DC

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

1. For the purpose of the I.R.C., American nationals are not “citizens”, however, but nonresident aliens ONLY, unless they volunteer for the PRIVILEGES associated with CIVIL/DOMICILED citizenship.
2. American nationals do fall within the definition of “nonresident alien” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(b)(1)(B) and 26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1(c)(3). They DO NOT fall in the definition of “citizen” anywhere in the I.R.C. or 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) or 8 U.S.C. §1401 and are therefore purposefully excluded.
3. Does the law EXPRESSLY PERMIT those who are nonresident aliens such as American nationals to make an “election” to be treated as CIVIL/DOMICLED “citizens**+D” for any circumstance OTHER than when they are married to a CIVIL/DOMICILED U.S.[**] citizen**+D in 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h)? NO! So it isn’t authorized.
4. There is also NO definition of “United States” or “citizen” anywhere in the I.R.C. or regs or title 8 that expressly includes states of the Union. Therefore they are PURPOSEFULLY excluded
5. Judges are not legislators and therefore cannot remedy the exclusion of states of the Union from “United States” and “citizen” within the I.R.C. It also fails the constitutional requirement for “reasonable notice” if the law does not expressly include them.
6. Since the presence test at 26 U.S.C. §7701(b) includes only “alien individuals”, then American nationals can never be anything BUT “nonresident” everywhere in the WORLD that they are and “nonresident aliens”.

So for those who advocate that American nationals who are nonresident aliens can LAWFULLY make an “election” to be treated as “U.S. persons” when they are NOT married to a CIVIL/DOMICILED U.S.[**] Citizen**+D under 26 U.S.C. §6013(g) and (h), this is FALSE!

The statutory geographical United States in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) creates the jurisdictional subclass from where said U.S. person property/office emanates from (DC).

This also camouflages the narrow scope of the true class, thereby permitting equivocation, thereby exploiting massive ignorance, thereby creating the maximum likelihood of election, and thereby maximizing revenue.

The fact that they in fact do utilize national citizenship (including 14A citizens) gives uncle the ability to CRUSH every person who claims not to be a “citizen.” Don’t claim what you’re not–claim what you are, which avoids the subclass qualifier and its umbrella national class.

“Citizen of the State of New York, residing in the borough of Brooklyn.” — Frank Brushaber

Uncle wants nothing more than for a person to:

A) Deny national citizenship; or

B) Deny the United States includes the 50 States

Both are frivolous assertions, and 100% unnecessary to make, if one would just claim nonresident alien status instead by filing the 1040NR return.

Naturalization:

1. Renounce old allegiance;
2. Pledge new allegiance;
3. U.S. citizenship granted

3 is distinct from 2+3 (American nationals)

3 is also distinct from 1+2+3 (former foreign nationals –naturalized)

Notice too, American Samoans are not U.S. citizens yet they still owe allegiance and are entitled to a passport because they are American nationals and U.S. nationals. Nationality is not the same thing as national citizenship.

See:

8 C.F.R. §337.1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/337.1

Association = citizenship

Nationality = association + allegiance

Political status=citizenship + allegiance.

Civil status = domicile + allegiance.

Political status is not the same thing as citizenship.

26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is just a “citizen.”. It has citizenship (no allegiance).

26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A) is a “citizen” with citizenship COUPLED WITH the “United States”*G (geographical sense) domicile.

Do you see it? The political sense of the “United States” is nested within the definition of “citizen.” THEN they connect that to the “United States”*G…at 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and at 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30)(A).

So the 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) citizen is domiciled, and the 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(c) is political status with citizenship.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. Uncle is in the PROPERTY rental business.
2. The PROPERTY being rented are civil or franchise statuses.
3. Income tax is the annual rent you pay for the privileges attach to the civil status.
4. You as their only customer have a right to refuse the benefits of the civil status of U.S. person.
5. If you refuse U.S. person, you drop back to Nonresident Alien.
6. Nonresident Alien=unleaded.
7. “U.S. person” = premium
8. Buyer beware!
9. Their entire scheme functions like Avis rent-a-car. They are in the “rent-an-ident” business.
10. If you don’t elect a privileged identity, then the only thing you pay tax on is kickbacks connected with payments you receive from Uncle, PROVIDED that they reserve a property interest in the payment IN ADVANCE in the I.R.C. as “gross income”
11. If they didn’t reserve such a property interest, then you never become a public officer in charge of the property of the public who then has a fiduciary duty to “return” anything.
12. They have the burden of proving they gave you the required reasonable notice before they can hold you accountable to pay a kickback of tax on the portion they reserved a PUBLIC property interest in at the time they paid you.

For a presentation that talks about the subject of this article, see:

Tax Status Presentation, Form #12.043
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/Tax_Status_Presentation.pptx