Chapter 6:
Empirical Results
Up to this
point, we have defined a set of key terms and created a scheme for
understanding how these key terms relate to each other. This scheme was summarized in the form of a
diagram which we have called The Matrix
(see Chapter 3 and also the original cover of this
book). The Matrix is a two-by-two table which permutes every combination
of citizen, alien, resident and nonresident, to create four unique cases:
1. resident
citizen
2. resident
alien
3. nonresident
citizen
4.
nonresident alien
As a body of
law, the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and its regulations together
require all "citizens" and all "residents" of the United
States** to pay taxes on their worldwide incomes. This requirement applies to three of the four cases shown above,
namely, resident citizens, resident aliens and
nonresident citizens. In the
fourth case, nonresident aliens only pay tax on income which is effectively
connected with a U.S.** trade or business, and on income from sources within the
U.S.** (like Frank Brushaber's dividend).
Their tax liability is succinctly summarized by the Code itself. Note how the relevant Code section utilizes
the phrase "includes only" as follows:
General Rule. -- In the case of a
nonresident alien individual, except where the context clearly indicates
otherwise, gross income includes only --
[!!]
(1) gross
income which is derived from sources within the United States** and which
is not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the
United States**, and
(2) gross
income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the United States**.
[IRC 872(a), emphasis added]
This may
sound all well and good, in theory. How
does it work in practice? With so many
words to document the recipe for pudding, how does the pudding taste? Three case histories provide some of the
necessary proof. Appendix A is a
winning brief proving that the income tax provisions of the IRC are municipal
statutes.
Case 1
Figure 1 shows a letter which an American Citizen sent to the District Director of the Internal Revenue Service in Ogden, Utah State. This letter was prepared in response to an unsigned letter from the IRS, requesting that he file a 1040 Form. Note, in particular, his use of the key words:
Figure 1: Letter to District Director
December 5, 1990
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah 84201
Re: NRA SSN #___-__-____
On or about
December 1, 1990, I received an unsigned document claiming that you have not
received the tax return 1040, and requesting that the form 1040 be filed. I have enclosed a copy of that request. I know of no such code that requires me to
file a "tax return 1040". If
you know of such a code, please identify that code for me.
I have
enclosed a copy of the letter that I have sent to the Director of the Foreign
Operations District, concerning this matter.
In
researching the revenue code book which your people kindly supplied to me, I discovered
that only an "individual" is required to file a tax return (26 U.S.C.
6012) and then only under certain circumstances. In looking at Section 7701(a)(1) of the code, I discovered that
the term "individual" is defined as a "person". Then, in checking under 7701(a)(30), I
discovered the definition of a "United States person" as meaning a
"citizen of the United States", "resident of the United
States", "domestic corporation", "domestic partnership"
and a "domestic trust or estate".
There is no INDIVIDUAL defined under 7701(a)(30) and therefore I cannot
be an "individual" within the meaning of 7701(a)(1) and/or 26 U.S.C.
6012.
As well, the
Supreme Court in the case of Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed.2d
45 (1989) made it perfectly clear that I, the sovereign, cannot be named in any
statute as merely a "person", or "any person". I am a member of the "sovereignty"
as defined in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 and the Dred Scott
case, 60 U.S. 393.
Therefore and
until you can prove otherwise, I am not a "taxpayer", nor an
"individual" that is required to file a tax return. Please forward to me a letter stating that I
am not liable for this tax return, or produce the documentation that requires
me to file the "requested" tax return.
If you have
any questions concerning this letter, you may write to me at the address shown
below. Please sign all papers so that I
know who I am dealing with. Until such
a time as I hear from you or your office, I will take the position that I am no
longer liable for filing the return.
Failure to respond will be taken as meaning that you have
"acquiesced" and that, from this date forward, the doctrine of
"estoppel by acquiescence" will prevail.
Sincerely,
/s/ NRA
"citizen
of the United States**", "resident
of the United States**", "domestic
corporation", "domestic
partnership", "domestic
trust or estate" and "sovereign". He asserted his status by explicitly
claiming to be a sovereign who was not
the "person" defined at IRC 7701(a)(1), and who was not the "United States**
person" defined at 7701(a)(30).
The IRC defines "person" as follows:
Person. -- The term "person"
shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate,
partnership, association, company or corporation.
[IRC 7701(a)(1)]
At that time, the IRC defined "United States**
person" as follows:
United States** person. --
The term "United States** person"
means --
(A) a citizen
or resident of the United States**,
(B) a domestic
partnership,
(C)
a domestic
corporation, and
(D)
any estate or trust (other than a foreign estate or foreign
trust, within the meaning of Section 7701(a)(31)).
[IRC 7701(a)(30), emphasis added]
Again, note
the use of the key words "citizen", "resident",
"domestic", and "foreign" which have been highlighted for
emphasis. These key words relate
directly to The Matrix. The key words "domestic" and
"foreign" relate directly to the boundaries of the federal zone, that
is, the "United States**" as that term is defined in relevant
sections of the United States Codes ("U.S.C."). A domestic corporation is one which was
chartered inside the federal zone. A
foreign estate or foreign trust are foreign
because they were established outside the federal zone. Without making these statements in so many
words, our intrepid American's letter in Figure 1 can be used to draw the
following inferences about his status
with respect to the exclusive
legislative jurisdiction of the "United States**":
1. He is a sovereign as defined by the Supreme
Court
2. He is not a citizen of the United States**
3. He is not a resident of the United States**
4. He is not a domestic corporation
5. He is not a domestic partnership
6. He is not a domestic estate and
7. He
is not a domestic trust
There is one important
thing his letter did not state
explicitly about him, and that is his status as a nonresident alien. Nevertheless, this inference can, in turn,
be drawn from two of the above inferences:
(2) he is not a citizen of the United States** and (3) he is not a resident of the United
States**. As a human being, he is not
an artificial "person" like a corporation, partnership, estate, or
trust. If he is not a citizen of the United States**, then he is an
alien. If he is not a resident of the
United States**, then he is a nonresident.
Therefore, he is a nonresident alien, according to the Code and its
regulations.
Now, let's take the pudding out of the
oven and see how it tastes. After
taking some time to review his letter, the IRS addressed the following response
to our intrepid American:
Department of
the Treasury
Internal
Revenue Service
Ogden, UT
84201
In
reply refer to: 9999999999
June
27, 1991 LTR 2358C
___-__-____ 8909
05 0000
Input
Op: 9999999999 07150
To: NRA
Address
City, State Zip
Taxpayer
Identification Number : ___-__-____
Tax Form : 1040
Tax Period : Sep. 30, 1989
Correspondence Received Date : June 13, 1991
Dear
Taxpayer:
Based on our information, you are no
longer liable for filing this tax return.
We may contact you in the future if issues arise that need
clarification. You do not need to reply
to this letter.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/
J. M. Wood
Chief,
Collection Branch
P.S. "J.
M. Wood" is a phony name, so you won’t ever be able to charge the real me
with extortion and racketeering.
Case 2
It would have
been interesting to see what kind of response NRA would have received if he had stated explicitly his status as a
nonresident alien. Based on what we
know already about the law and its regulations, such an explicit statement
might have expedited the processing of his letter. But, hindsight is always 20/20.
Fortunately, we do have another example where an American Citizen did
just that, in response to a similar IRS request for a 1040 form. The following is the text of the IRS
request:
Department of the Treasury
Internal
Revenue Service
Ogden, UT
94201
Date
of this Notice: 08-19-91
Taxpayer Identification: (ssn)
Form: 1040
Tax
Periods: 12-31-89
To: ARN
Your
tax return is overdue -- Contact us immediately
We still have not received your tax return,
Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the year ending 12-31-89.
We must resolve this matter. Contact us immediately, or we may take the
following action:
1. Summon you to come in with your books and
records as provided by Sections 7602 and 7603 of the Internal Revenue Code;
2.
Criminal prosecution that includes a
fine, imprisonment, or both, for persons who willfully fail to file a tax
return or provide tax information (Code Section 7203).
To prevent these actions, file your tax
return today and attach your payment for any tax due.
Even if you can't pay the entire
amount of tax you owe now, it is important that you file your tax return
today.
Pay as much as you can and tell us
when you will pay the rest.
We may be able to arrange for you to
pay in installments.
Detach and enclose the form below with
your return. To expedite processing,
use the enclosed envelope.
If you are not required to file or have
previously filed, please contact us at the phone number shown above.
[unsigned]
I always enjoy it very much when the IRS states that
"you can pay in installments".
Somebody should write to them and recommend that they consider
augmenting their "Services" by implementing a layaway plan. They may even have a special form for this
very thing: Service Augmentation
Request Form (RF) #6666666, kind of like their "internal" Form 4685,
as described on page 34 of the IRS Printed Product Catalog, Document
7130:
Form
4685 41890S (Each)
News Clipping Mounting Guide
This guide sheet is used for
mounting news clippings
for submittal to the National
Office.
C:PA:L Internal Use
Now, our
second intrepid American, coded with the initials ARN (Non Resident Alien
abbreviated backwards) also took it upon himself to respond in writing. This time, however, he wrote the following
words right on the IRS letter and
sent it back to them, certified mail, return receipt requested, on September
13, 1991:
PLEASE BE ADVISED that ARN is a
non-resident alien of the United States**, never having lived, worked, nor
having income from any source within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or any other Territory within the United
States**, which entity has its origin and jurisdiction from Article 1, Section
8, Clause 17, of the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, he is a non-taxpayer outside of the venue and jurisdiction of
26 U.S.C.
This response
gets right to the point. In his first
sentence, ARN is explicit and unequivocal about his status as a nonresident
alien with respect to the United
States**. He has never lived or worked
in the United States**. He has never
had income from any source inside ("within") the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or any other Territory
within the United States**. He exhibits
his knowledge of the relevant constitutional authority for "internal"
revenue laws by correctly citing Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17
("1:8:17") of the U.S. Constitution.
Lastly, he concludes that he is a "non‑taxpayer" who is
outside the venue and jurisdiction of 26 U.S.C. (i.e., Title 26, United States Code).
English
Philosopher William of Occam (1300-1349) put it succinctly when he said:
"The simplest solution is the
best."
Contrast this, the simplest of statements, with one
dictionary’s definition of "Occam's razor", as it is called:
Occam's
razor n [William of Ockham]: a scientific and philosophic rule that entities
should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that
the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that
explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
[Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary]
[G. & C. Merriam Co.]
[Springfield, Mass. 1981]
We wonder if the people who write for
G. & C. Merriam Company also obtain supplementary compensation for services
performed inside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal
democracy of the United States** (i.e., moonlight in the federal zone).
Exactly two
weeks later, ARN received the following letter from J. M. Wood, signed with
"hand writing" that lines up perfectly with the same signature
received by NRA. Could it have been a
computer signature?
Department of
the Treasury
Internal
Revenue Service
Ogden, UT
84201
In
reply refer to: 9999999999
Sep.
30, 1991 LTR 2358C
___-__-____ 8902
30 000
Input
Op: 9999999999 07150
To: ARN
Address
City, State Zip
Taxpayer
Identification Number : ___-__-____
Tax Form : 1040
Tax Period : Dec. 31, 1989
Correspondence Received Date : Sep. 16, 1991
Dear
Taxpayer:
Based on our information, you are no
longer liable for filing a tax return for this period. If other issues arise, we may need to
contact you in the future. You do not
need to reply to this letter.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/
J. M. Wood
Chief,
Collection Branch
P.S. "J. M. Wood" is a phony name, so you won’t ever be able to charge the real me with extortion and racketeering.
Now, that's what we call fast internal revenue service.
A keen appreciation
for the precise limits of exclusive federal jurisdiction has spread like
wildfire since the initial publication of The Federal Zone and books
like it. Other Sovereign Americans have
mastered the subject so well, their communications with the IRS are quite
stunning to behold, even now. Our third
case is the written dialogue between SOV and IRS. It began when IRS
demanded an explanation why SOV
was not required to [please go to end
of Figure 2]
Figure 2: Letter to Chief, Collection Branch
May 27, 1993
Dear Chief,
You have
asked me to explain why I am not one required to provide information/statements
to your office. My filing status is outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the "United States" as defined at
Title 18 U.S.C. (Crimes), Section 7(3), to wit:
Any lands reserved or acquired for the use
of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction
thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by
consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the
erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.
I do NOT
reside, nor do I live within, the Federal jurisdiction of the United
States. The Federal jurisdiction is foreign
with respect to the 50 states, just
as the 50 states are foreign with
respect to each other (see U.S. v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, affirming In
re Merriam's Estate, 36 NE 505; see
also Title 28, Section 297, wherein the freely associated compact states are
FOREIGN COUNTRIES with respect to the
corporate United States Government).
The
Independent Sovereign state of Illinois and the Sovereign individual, SOV, are NOT
subject to federal law outside the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of
Congress as defined by the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 thru
18.
"All
legislation is prima facie
territorial."
[American Banana Co. v. United
Fruit Co.]
[213 U.S. 347, 356-357 (1909)]
"Legislation is presumptively
territorial and confined to limits over which the law-making power has
jurisdiction."
[New York Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm]
[268 U.S. 29, 31-32 (1925)]
... [T]he "canon of construction
which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is
meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
...."
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217, 222]
[70 S.Ct. 10 (1949)]
Since I am
not a resident of the Federal Corporate United States and did not conduct a
trade or business within the Corporate Federal government, I elected not
to file or report any of my private affairs to this FOREIGN jurisdiction. "With Explicit Reservation of All
Rights" U.C.C. 1-207
/s/ SOV
provide information to them. Figure 2 shows every detail of the letter which SOV wrote to them
on Form 9358: "Information About Your Tax Return for INDIVIDUAL Taxpayers
Only". This letter expands upon
territorial jurisdiction by citing several decisions on this subject by the
U.S. Supreme Court, in addition to two key federal statutes. Without question, the quoted language of
Title 18 refers to 1:8:17 in the Constitution for the United States of America
("fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building"). The quoted language of Title 28, U.S.C.,
section 297, shows that Congress still
refers to the 50 States as "countries". SOV then ends his letter by reserving all his rights under the
Common Law.
It took
almost two months for the IRS to process this letter. Here is their response:
Department of
the Treasury
Internal
Revenue Service
Kansas City,
MO 64999
In
reply refer to: 9999999999
July
30, 1993 LTR 2358C
___-__-____ 9012
30 000
Input
Op: 9999999999 07463
To: SOV
Address
City, State Zip
Taxpayer
Identification Number : ___-__-____
Tax Form : 1040
Tax Period : Dec. 31, 1990
Correspondence Received Date : July 22, 1993
Dear
Taxpayer:
Thank you for providing the overdue tax
return we requested for the period(s) shown above. If there is an amount due, we will send you a bill after we
process your return. If you are due a
refund, you will receive it soon. You
do not need to respond to this letter.
If you have any questions about this letter,
you may write us at the address shown above or you may call the IRS telephone
number listed in your local directory.
Sincerely
yours,
/s/
Dorothy O. Smith
Chief,
Collection Branch
P.S. "Dorothy O. Smith" is also a phony name, so you won’t ever be able to charge the real me with extortion and racketeering.
To give you some idea just how far we need to elevate
the importance of status and jurisdiction, consider the following lengthy quotes
from the written work of author, attorney at law and constitutional expert
Jeffrey A. Dickstein. These quotes were
buried deep among footnotes at the
end of the chapters in his brilliant book entitled Judicial Tyranny and Your
Income Tax:
The term "individual" which is
used not only in Section 6012(a)(1) but also in Section 1 as the subject upon
whose income the tax is imposed, is not defined in the Internal Revenue
Code. It is, however, defined in the
treasury regulations accompanying Section 1.
The regulations make a distinction between "citizens" and
"residents" of the United States**, and define a "citizen"
as every person born or naturalized in the United States** and subject to its jurisdiction [see 26 CFR Section 1.1-1
(a) - (c)]. An extremely strong
argument can be made that the federal income tax as passed by Congress and as
implemented by the Treasury Department was only meant to apply to individuals
within the "territorial or exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the
United States**," as those individuals would be subject to the
"jurisdiction of the United States**." These exclusive areas, per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of
the United States Constitution, are Washington, D.C., federal enclaves and
United States** possessions and territories.
Outside of these exclusive areas, state law controls, not federal
law. Thus a State citizen, residing in
a State, would not meet the two part test for being an "individual"
upon whose income the tax is imposed by Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code,
and would not have the "status" of a "taxpayer." It is the official policy of the I.R.S.
[Policy P-(11)-23] to issue, upon written request, rulings and determination
letters regarding status for tax purposes prior to the filing of a return. On August 29, 1988, I requested such a
"status determination" from the I.R.S. on behalf of one of my
clients; as of the date of the
publication of this book, the I.R.S. had still not responded.
[Judicial Tyranny and Your Income
Tax, pages 83-84]
Evidently,
Dickstein was exposed to this particular argument by another attorney and
constitutional expert, Lowell Becraft of Huntsville, Alabama. It is very revealing that Dickstein could
justify the following observations even
with a legal presumption that the Sixteenth Amendment had been ratified:
... Attorney Lowell Becraft of Huntsville,
Alabama, has made a powerful territorial/legislative jurisdictional argument
that under the Supreme Court's holding in Brushaber,
the income tax cannot be imposed anywhere except within those limited areas
within the states in which the Federal government has exclusive legislative
authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the United States
Constitution, such as on military bases, national forests, etc., and within United
States territories, such as Puerto Rico, etc.
Indeed, Treasury Department delegation orders and the language of
Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. Section 1.1-1(c) fully supports Mr. Becraft's
scholarly analysis.
[Judicial Tyranny and Your Income
Tax, p. 33]
After
publishing Judicial Tyranny, Jeffrey Dickstein made an absolutely
stunning presentation to Judge Paul E. Plunkett in defense of William J. Benson
before the federal district court in Chicago.
From the transcript of that hearing, it is obvious that Dickstein had
continued to distill his vast knowledge even further, by isolating the
following essential core:
The statutes are in the Internal Revenue
Code. I submit they mean something
different if the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified than they do if the Sixteenth
Amendment was not ratified. If the
Sixteenth Amendment was ratified it means you can go into the states and
collect this direct tax without apportionment.
If it's not ratified you can't go
into the states and do that. And since Pollock says it's a direct tax,
what other connotation can you give to the statutes? The connotation that makes it constitutional is that it applies
everywhere except within the states
-- which would be where? On army bases, federal enclaves, Washington,
D.C., the possessions and the territories.
[You Can Rely On The Law That Never
Was!, pages 20-21]
[emphasis added]
Sometimes,
the answer is staring us right in the face. In retrospect, we dedicate this
chapter to Jeffrey Dickstein, who has done so much to bring the truth about our
federal government into the bright light of day. Jeff, we have only ourselves to blame for not paying closer
attention to your every words.
In the
passage quoted above from pages 83 and 84 of Judicial Tyranny, author
Dickstein refers to IRS Policy #P-(11)-23, from the official Internal Revenue
Manual (IRM). This "policy"
reads as follows:
RULINGS, DETERMINATION LETTERS, AND
CLOSING AGREEMENTS AS TO SPECIFIC ISSUES
P-(11)-23
(Approved 6-14-87)
Rulings and determination letters in
general
Rulings and determination letters are issued to individuals and organizations upon
written requests, whenever appropriate in the interest of wise and sound
tax administration, as to their status
for tax purposes and as to the tax effect of their acts or transactions, prior
to their filing of returns or reports as required by the revenue laws. Rulings are issued only by the National
Office. Determination letters are issued only by District Directors and the Director
of International Operations.
Reference to District Director or district office in these policy
statements also includes the office of the Director of International
Operations.
[emphasis added]
This IRS "policy", as
published in their Internal Revenue Manual, prompted the National Commodity and
Barter Association in Denver, Colorado, to draft the following example of a
request letter, updated by this author for extra clarity and authority:
EXAMPLE OF
REQUEST LETTER
Director of
International Operations
Foreign
Operations Division
Internal
Revenue Service
11601
Roosevelt Boulevard
Philadelphia,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Dear
Director:
My research of the Internal Revenue Code
and related Regulations has left me confused about my status for purposes of
Federal Income Taxation.
Pursuant to I.R.M. Policy
#P-(11)-23, "upon written request" I can obtain from your office a
determination of my status for purposes of Federal Income Taxation.
This is my written, formal request
for a determination letter as to my status for Federal Income Tax purposes.
Please take note that your
determination letter must be signed under penalty of perjury, per IRC Section
6065.
If this is not the proper format for
making this request, please send me the proper format with instructions.
If I do not receive a determination
letter from you within 30 days, I will be entitled to presume that I am not
subject to any provisions of the IRC.
Sincere
yours,
/s/ John Q.
Doe
All Rights
Reserved
What is the
lesson in all of this? At the end of Chapter 1, we expressed our intention to elevate status
and jurisdiction to the level of importance which they have always
deserved. We are by no means and in no
way advising any Americans to utter,
or to sign their names on, any statements which they know to be false. On the contrary, it is fair to say that we
have been criticized more often in life for being too honest.
If you are a nonresident alien with
respect to the federal zone, then say so.
If you are not a nonresident
alien with respect to the federal
zone, then think about changing your status.
You can if you want to, because involuntary servitude is forbidden everywhere in this land. It's the 13th Amendment, properly ratified
right after the Civil War, and that is
the supreme Law everywhere in America!
#
# #
Reader’s Notes: