Proof of Facts: What the geographical “United States” means in 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(9) and (a)(10) – Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM)

SOURCE: Non-Resident Non-Person Position, Form #05.020, Section 4.2; https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/NonresidentNonPersonPosition.pdf.

This series of questions and the evidence provided answering each uses the Socratic Method to lead the reader to the INEVITABLE realization of EXACTLY what the geographical “United States” means as defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) and (a)(10).

The good news is we now agree that:

The geographical United States includes the 50 states.
Its pointless to argue about what is included beyond what is described here.
The government indeed has the power to tax “throughout the United States” as confirmed in Downes.
The tax is NON-GEOGRAPHICAL per the Supreme Court, and extends to all states of the Union just like that described for DC by no less than the U.S. Supreme Court.
The definition is deliberately vague, because if they made it specific, no one would participate in the income tax or make any elections! These are all Third Rail Issues, folks, that the government can’t even ACKNOWLEDGE or speak about!
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ThirdRailIssues.pdf
The government will NEVER argue with this description because it doesn’t violate any known frivolous positions and yet COMPLETELY destroys their ability to recruit “taxpayer” VOLUNTEERS (Form #08.008) at the same time.

If you would like to apply this information to challenging an income tax liability, see:

Property View of Income Taxation Course, Form #12.046-applies the laws of property to the concepts in this article and that of filing a tax return.
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf
Laws of Property, Form #14.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf
Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404
https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/
Citizenship Status v. Tax Status, Form #10.011, Section 15: Geographical Definitions and Conventions. Proves that the income tax Taft proposed was upon the GOVERNMENT and not upon a geography.
https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/CitizenshipStatusVTaxStatus/CitizenshipVTaxStatus.htm#15_GEOGRAPHICAL_DEFINITIONS_AND_CONVENTIONS
Challenging Jurisdiction Workbook, Form #09.082
https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/ChalJurWorkbook.pdf
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “United States”
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/UnitedStates.htm
Your Rights as a “Nontaxpayer”, IRS Publication 1a, Form #08.008
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NontaxpayerBOR.pdf
How American Nationals Volunteer to Pay Income Tax, Form #08.024
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/HowYouVolForIncomeTax.pdf

BEGIN ADMISSIONS

When asked if you’re a citizen of the United States, you may think you’re simply affirming your national citizenship. But did you know that the “citizen of the United States” contemplated in the tax code for the purposes of status election constitutes a narrow class of ALL citizens of the nation that has NOTHING TO DO with your nationality? Even nonresident aliens can be “nationals of the United States” under 26 U.S.C. 873. So you might ask yourself: What exactly is a U.S. citizen if it isn’t someone born in the NATION “United States*”? By affirming the voluntary PRIVILEGED status of “citizen” (whatever THAT means), you are electing and volunteering to participate in a tax scheme that truly has narrow applicability. The IRS calls it “voluntary compliance”–and it is. It’s fully constitutional, fully legitimate, and becoming a “taxpayer” with a duty to perform under the law is also voluntary. Allow us to demonstrate…..

For the purposes of this discuss, the following terms are all synonymous: status, privilege, civil status, and public office, and they all mean PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT property granted to the recipient under the terms of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A bailment, property management, and franchise agreement (Form #05.030).

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Remove Constitutional Protections and Replace With Statutes
What is the Statutory Geographical Meaning?
Public or Private?
Foreign or domestic?
Separation Between Public and Private and Breaking it Down
Changing and Tracking the Status as Domestic/Public or Foreign/Private
Conclusions

1. REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND REPLACE WITH STATUTES

2. WHAT IS THE STATUTORY GEOGRAPHICAL MEANING?

2.1. Admit that the definition of singular geographical “State” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) is the “District of Columbia”.

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(9)United States

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

2.2. Admit that the definition of geographical “United States” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) is the following:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(a)When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(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.

2.3. Admit that for the purposes of interpreting Title 26, the rules indicated in 26 U.S.C. §7701(p)(1) indicate the following:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(p)Cross references

(1)Other definitions

For other definitions, see the following sections of Title 1 of the United States Code:

(1) Singular as including plural, section 1.

(2) Plural as including singular, section 1.

2.4. Admit that 1 U.S.C. §1 says the following about plural v. singular:

1 U.S. Code § 1 – Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

2.5. Admit that the term “State” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) includes the following:

“words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;”

2.6. Admit that based on the prior question the term “States” as used in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) may be interpreted as being the same as “State” and that BOTH imply the plural.

2.7. Admit that an income tax on the District of Columbia as a “State” is described by the U.S. Supreme Court as follows:

Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317, 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, Feb. 17, 1815. It was insisted that Congress could act in a double capacity: in one as legislating 260*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 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, ¶ 4, 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 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.”

There could be no doubt as to the correctness of this conclusion, so far, at least, as it applied to the District of Columbia. This District had been a part of the States of Maryland and 261*261 Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably. There are steps which can never be taken backward. The tie that bound the States of Maryland and Virginia to the Constitution could not be dissolved, without at least the consent of the Federal and state governments to a formal separation. The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the States, but it did not take it out of the United States or from under the aegis of the Constitution. Neither party had ever consented to that construction of the cession. If, before the District was set off, Congress had passed an unconstitutional act, affecting its inhabitants, it would have been void. If done after the District was created, it would have been equally void; in other words, Congress could not do indirectly by carving out the District what it could not do directly. The District still remained a part of the United States, protected by the Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government.

In delivering the opinion, however, the Chief Justice made certain observations which have occasioned some embarrassment in other cases. “The power,” said he, “to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri, is not less within the United States than Maryland and Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties and excises, should be observed in the one, than in the other. Since, then, the power to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously coextensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United States, it follows, that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout 262*262 the United States.” So far as applicable to the District of Columbia, these observations are entirely sound. So far as they apply to the territories, they were not called for by the exigencies of the case.

[Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9926302819023946834]

2.8. Admit that an income tax in the context of the District of Columbia above is described as “without limitation as to place” and that it extends wherever the GOVERNMENT as a corporation extends, and not a GEOGRAPHY:

“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.“

3. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE?

3.1. Admit that the U.S. government extends THROUGHOUT the constitutional “United States” in all 50 states, because it has offices and facilities in all 50 states identified in the constitution, and thus extends THROUGHOUT the NATION as indicated above.

” “The power,” said he, “to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.“

3.2. Admit that these OFFICES and facilities are where “public officers” engaged in a “trade or business” (functions of a public office) serve.

3.3. Admit that the United States “government” as a fiction and a federal corporation identified in 28 U.S.C. §3002(15)(A) consists ONLY of the following:

1. Property, including land, physical objects, contracts, and intangibles.

2. Officers or agents, including civil statutory “employees”.

3.4. Admit that a tax on ONLY the government is a tax on EITHER its property or its offices. By “offices”, we mean employees, agents, and contractors.

3.5. Admit that Title 26 Subtitle A is an income tax upon PUBLIC property indicated in question 3.3, item 1 earlier.

3.6. Admit that the only type of property the government owns which is GEOGRAPHICAL is land under its exclusive jurisdiction throughout the NATION “United States”, INCLUDING the 50 states.

3.7. Admit that excise taxes such as Title 26 Subtitle A are upon privileges and privileged ACTIVITIES.

“Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges…the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of [220 U.S. 107, 152] privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking…

…It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable…

[Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911);
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=220&page=107]

3.8. Admit that the term “privilege” is defined as

Privilege. A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others.

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1197]

3.9. Admit that “RIGHTS, benefits, and advantages” indicated above have in common that they all represent a PROPERTY interest in PUBLIC property granted (permitted and subsidized) by the government.

“The compensation which the owners of property, not having any special rights or privileges from the government in connection with it, may demand for its use, or for their own services in union with it, forms no element of consideration in prescribing regulations for that purpose.

[. . .]

“It is only where some right or privilege [which are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, see LAWS OF PROPERTY, FORM #14.018] is conferred by the government or municipality upon the owner, which he can use in connection with his property, or by means of which the use of his property is rendered more valuable to him, or he thereby enjoys an advantage over others, that the compensation to be received by him becomes a legitimate matter of regulation. Submission to the regulation of compensation in such cases is an implied condition of the grant, and the State, in exercising its power of prescribing the compensation, only determines the conditions upon which its concession shall be enjoyed. When the privilege ends, the power of regulation ceases.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) :
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]

3.10. Admit that Congress has the power to “make all needful rules respecting the Territory and other property of the United States” under Constitution Article 4:3:2.

U.S. constitution
Article 4 States Relations
Section 3. Admission of New States; Property of United States
Clause 2. Property of the United States

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

3.11. Admit that excise taxation of PUBLIC property, also called PRIVILEGES, are a lawful regulation of the use or consumption of public property under 4:3:2.

3.12. Admit that the power to engage in said taxation or regulation is impermissible if PUBLIC property is NOT involved with either the activity or the persons engaging in the activity as agents of the government.

“When the privilege ends, the power of regulation [and by implication TAXATION, which is a form of regulation] ceases.”
[Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1876) :
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6419197193322400931]

3.13. Admit that the income tax as an excise is, in fact, a tax upon the beneficial use or consumption of government/PUBLIC property.

3.14. Admit that the subject of the I.R.C. Subtitle A is an excise tax upon a “trade or business”, which is defined as “the functions of a public office”.

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(26)Trade or business

The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

3.15. Admit that public offices are government property.

3.16 Admit that public offices of the national government extend throughout the geographical NATION “United States”.

3.17. Admit that those NOT engaged in public offices and who have NOT connected their otherwise PRIVATE property by “effectively connecting” it to a “trade or business” are referred to a “foreign estate” that does not earn “gross income”.

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(31)Foreign estate or trust

(A)Foreign estate

The term “foreign estate” means an estate the income of which, from sources without the United States which is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States, is not includible in gross income under subtitle A.

4. FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC?

4.1. Admit that the word “foreign” by itself is never geographically defined in the I.R.C. and that it is only defined in terms of corporations:

26 U.S. Code § 7701 – Definitions

(5)Foreign

The term “foreign” when applied to a corporation or partnership means a corporation or partnership which is not domestic.

4.2. Admit that because “foreign” is never defined geographically, one can be physically inside the NATION “United States” and STILL be foreign.

4.3. Admit that “foreign” in the I.R.C. means NOT CONNECTED with public property, privileges, or offices and therefore PRIVATE:

PRIVATE. Affecting or belonging to private individuals, as distinct from the public generally. Not official; not clothed with office. People v. Powell, 280 Mich. 699, 274 N.W. 372, 373, 111 A.L.R. 721.

As to private “Act,” “Agent,” “Bill,” “Boundary,” “Bridge,” “Business,” “Carrier,” “Chapel,” Corporation,” “Detective,” “Dwelling House,””Easement,” “Examination,” “Ferry,” “Nuisance,””Pond,” “Property,” “Prosecutor,” “Rights,” “Road,” “Sale,” “School,” “Seal,” “Statute,””Stream,” “Trust,” “Water,” “War,” “Way,'” ‘Wharf,” and “Wrongs,” see those titles.

[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1358]

_______________________________________________________

PRIVATE PERSON. An individual who is not the incumbent of an office.

[Blacks Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1359]

4.4. Admit that the “office” described above as working for the government is in charge of MAINLY PUBLIC property:

“Public office. The right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government for the benefit of the public. Walker v. Rich, 79 Cal.App. 139, 249 P. 56, 58. An agency for the state, the duties of which involve in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, either great or small. Yaselli v. Goff, C.C.A., 12 F.2d. 396, 403, 56 A.L.R. 1239; Lacey v. State, 13 Ala.App. 212, 68 So. 706, 710; Curtin v. State, 61 Cal.App. 377, 214 P. 1030, 1035; Shelmadine v. City of Elkhart, 75 Ind.App. 493, 129 N.E. 878. State ex rel. Colorado River Commission v. Frohmiller, 46 Ariz. 413, 52 P.2d. 483, 486. Where, by virtue of law, a person is clothed, not as an incidental or transient authority, but for such time as de- notes duration and continuance, with Independent power to control the property of the public, or with public functions to be exercised in the supposed interest of the people, the service to be compensated by a stated yearly salary, and the occupant having a designation or title, the position so created is a public office. State v. Brennan, 49 Ohio.St. 33, 29 N.E. 593.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, p. 1235]

4.5. Admit that IF the “taxpayer” is in fact an “office” as described above, the duration of their employment is one year, because tax returns and information returns such as W-2’s only cover one year.

4.6. Admit that an act of consent on the part of someone filing a tax return is called an “election” by the IRS.

4.7. Admit that “public officers” generally have to be “elected” to serve in most cases, if they “elect” themselves into the office with an act of consent.

4.8. Admit that the geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) means ALL PUBLIC LAND under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government under 40 U.S.C. §3111 and 3112 ceded to the national government THROUGHOUT the NATION “United States”, including the 50 states, because it is the only subset of PUBLIC property listed above that is geographical.

4.9. Admit that if the I.R.C. had enumerated the above in the definition of the geographical “United States”, almost no one would participate in the income tax. Therefore, they had to leave the definition deliberately void for vagueness in the hopes that no one would every discover what it really means.

5. SEPARATION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND BREAKING IT DOWN

More on the subject of these questions at:

Separation Between Public and Private Course, Form #12.025
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/SeparatingPublicPrivate.pdf

5.1. Admit that the Constitution NOWHERE gives the right to regulate or tax exclusively PRIVATE property. By PRIVATE, we mean property that the government does not have either an absolute or qualified ownership (moiety) interest in.

“The power to “legislate generally upon” life, liberty, and property, as opposed to the “power to provide modes of redress” against offensive state action, was “repugnant” to the Constitution. Id., at 15. See also United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 218 (1876); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 639 (1883); James v. Bowman, 190 U.S. 127, 139 (1903). Although the specific holdings of these early cases might have been superseded or modified, see, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), their treatment of Congress’ §5 power as corrective or preventive, not definitional, has not been questioned.”
[City of Boerne v. Florez, Archbishop of San Antonio, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) ]

5.2. Admit that the following rules identify exactly when and how the government acquires a PUBLIC ownership interest in PRIVATE property that might give rise to the power to regulate or tax.

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,- ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property [or income] which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit [e.g. SOCIAL SECURITY, Medicare, and every other public “benefit”]; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.”

[Budd v. People of State of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)]

5.3. Admit that PRIVATE property and physical land are “foreign” with respect to the geographical “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).

5.4. Admit that PUBLIC property and LAND is ALWAYS DOMESTIC and WITHIN the “United States” as geographically defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).

6. CHANGING AND TRACKING THE STATUS AS DOMESTIC/PUBLIC or FOREIGN/PRIVATE

More on the subject of these questions at:

Property View of Income Taxation, Form #12.046
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/PropertyViewOfIncomeTax.pdf

6.1. Admit that the status of any government identifying numbers consensually associated with LAND establishes whether the land is FOREIGN or DOMESTIC:

26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1 – Identifying numbers.

(g) Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign persons—

(1) General rule—

(i) Social security number. 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.

(ii) Employer identification number. An employer identification number is generally identified in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a U.S. person. However, the Internal Revenue Service may establish a separate class of employer identification numbers solely dedicated to foreign persons which will be identified as such in the records and database of the Internal Revenue Service. A person may establish a different status for the number either at the time of application or subsequently by providing proof of U.S. or 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. The Internal Revenue Service may require a person to apply for the type of employer identification number that reflects the status of that person as a U.S. or foreign person.

6.2. Admit that the TAX RETURN filed in connection with land establishes whether it is PUBLIC/DOMESTIC or PRIVATE/FOREIGN. Thus, the tax return filed constitutes an ELECTION device by the owner to change or convert the STATUS of the land between PUBLIC and PRIVATE, and thus WITHIN or WITHOUT the geographical “United States”.

6.3. Admit that the following tax returns change the LAND to PUBLIC and DOMESTIC:

1040 Domestic Individuals and Partners (U.S. person)
1041 Domestic Trusts (U.S. person)
1120-S Domestic C-Corp
990 Domestic Foundation or Association

6.4. Admit that the following tax returns change the LAND to PRIVATE and FOREIGN:

1040NR Nonresident alien individual, trust, or estate (foreign person)
1120-F Foreign C-Corp
990-F Foreign Foundation or Association

6.5. Admit that specific land that is either DOMESTIC or FOREIGN is constantly changing as owners change and tax return filing types change. Thus, it is POINTLESS to try to exactly nail down what is EXPRESSLY included in the geographical “United States” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9).

6.6. Admit that a decision by an American National to “elect” to be treated as the “citizen of the United States**[geographical]” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1(a) and therefore a “United States Person” defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) results in election to treat their entire worldwide earnings as “gross income” instead of only those from the statutory geographical “United States**” in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) under 26 U.S.C. §871(b) and 877(b):

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

§ 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule.

(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.

[. . .]

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

6.7. Admit that there is NO EXPRESS provision of law anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code that permits an American National domiciled within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state to “elect” to be treated as a the “citizen of the United States” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1:

There is NO LAW that permits an American National as a Nonresident Alien to Elect to be a U.S. person if they are NOT married to one, SEDM
https://sedm.org/there-is-no-law-that-permits-a-state-national-as-a-nonresident-alien-to-elect-to-be-a-u-s-person-if-they-are-not-married-to-one/

6.8. Admit that specifying one’s nationality and domicile in the following form, just as Frank Brushaber did in the famous case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) is sufficient to PREVENT a state domiciled American National from being interpreted as having made an election to be treated AS IF they are a “U.S. person” under 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(30) and the “citizen of the United States**[geographical]” mentioned in 26 C.F.R. §1.1-1:

Citizen of __________(state name), Residing in _________(county name)

See: Nonresident Alien Position Course, Form #12.045, Section 21 starting on p. 97
https://sedm.org/LibertyU/NRA.pdf

6.9. Admit that the income tax, in practical effect, functions as a RENTAL fee upon the beneficial use or enjoyment of GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC property. Uncle Sam is in the PROPERTY rental business like Avis Rent-A-Car!

7. CONCLUSIONS:

At the center of the eye of this hurricane is the LAWS OF PROPERTY!

The laws of property are only referenced in TWO PLACES throughout the entire constitution:

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 quoted above.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-4/
The Fifth Amendment, where it says no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law:
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/

But even the FIRST reference in the constitution is very obtuse, because it’s connected with LAND and not any OTHER kind of property. The second reference doesn’t distinguish the two classes of property either, which are PRIVATE/FOREIGN and PUBLIC/DOMESTIC.

If you ask questions of Chatgpt or Google Gemini about the laws of property and how to apply them to this situation and even quote the definition of “property” from Black’s law dictionary that it includes things OTHER than land, the Chatbot emphasizes that it classically ONLY means land.

These are the reasons we had to write the following:

Hot Issues: Laws of Property, SEDM
https://sedm.org/laws-of-property/
Laws of Property, Form #14.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/LawsOfProperty.pdf

There isn’t even ONE BOOK on the LAWS OF PROPERTY that we’ve found on Google books or even searching the Internet after 20 years of looking. That’s why we had to write the above book. And that book is GOLD and totally unique in covering the subject.

Even lawyers learn NOTHING about these laws. It’s literally the most mysterious subject there is in law, mainly because it is the MOST powerful tool there is when employed against the sophists.

Finding out how to confront this issue as we did above therefore has been like finding a LITERAL needle in a haystack or trying to see a black hole by staring at it. Third Rail Issues are ALWAYS the equivalent of black holes in nature.

Once you realize that “foreign” has NOTHING to do with geography, you realize you’re in a house of statutory mirrors to strip you of your property and convert it from private to public without your knowledge and informed consent.

So the first question standing at the door of that statutory house of mirrors is:

“How did you get any aspect of ownership of the property affected without my express consent?”

And if government can’t satisfy that burden of proof in proving this as the origin of their authority to tax and regulate, the enforcement action MUST be dismissed. It’s a Fifth Amendment tort against private property. It’s a THEFT and a USUFRUCT.

Every exit door to the statutory house of mirrors requires converting the property through some kind of donation process:

Election to U.S. person. That converts ALL of it. This is done by filing a 1040 instead of a 1040NR. That election, in fact, is NOT EVEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW for most Americans! How do you “Revoke an election” that isn’t even expressly authorized by law? See:
There is NO LAW that permits an American National as a Nonresident Alien to Elect to be a U.S. person if they are NOT married to one, SEDM
https://sedm.org/there-is-no-law-that-permits-a-state-national-as-a-nonresident-alien-to-elect-to-be-a-u-s-person-if-they-are-not-married-to-one/
Effectively connecting it. That converts specific property. This is done on the Form 1040NR itself.
Mistakenly thinking its a U.S source when it isn’t and thus donating it. U.S. source means GOVERNMENT source, not geographical. This is done using Schedule NEC.

For most Americans, every one of the three is a product of MAINLY legal ignorance. What they have wrought is a well-oiled swindling machine ENGINEERED to part LEGALLY IGNORANT FOOLS, which is most Americans, from their hard-earned money. Fools and their money are quickly parted.

For thus says the Lord: “You have sold yourselves for nothing, And you shall be redeemed without money.”
[Isaiah 52:3, Bible, NKJV]

Don’t be one of those fools, people! Learn the law! We are here to help you.