Re: foreign...Re: foreign earned income

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Two Cities on October 02, 1998 at 11:40:21:

In Reply to: foreign...Re: foreign earned income posted by KatNip on September 30, 1998 at 14:29:27:

So would it behoove an "individual", that artful
creation, helplessly tangled in a web of contracts,
since diaper age, to publicly, perhaps with a letter
addressed to the receiver of "Voter registrations", to
publicly declare the intent to become resident again within
the domain that was previously and normally departed
from, and proceed to file 2555 based upon a substantial
presence test, take the $70,000 deduction (single),
generously provided for, and carry on.

The "Legal Address" of the "County Treasurer" is NOT WA, but
is stated to be "Wa."

Does the service recognize the foreign location of
let's say California? The man may be able to move, but
any entity left behind (corporate in nature), is forever
confined to the location of its creation. So John Quincy
moves and PUBLIC, JOHN Q stays behind. The multiplication
of entities that a single mans signature might support, does
not necessarily equate to multiplication of receivables.
I.e. if JOHN Q has a receivable, John Quincy might not, and
neither might JOHN QUINCY. Otherwise the GDP could mushroom

This clearly works in instances like France etc, and JOHN Q
is permitted to change HIS address of record. The question
that arises then is if the service will treat the boundary
with California in a similar fashion.

Anyone who ever registered to vote did become a United States
citizen, by voluntary application and contract, in order to
partake in a priviledge, and to provide the quid pro quo.

: But foreign only under private international law, i.e,
: Conflict of Laws..."Full Faith and Credit" clause.

: "While in the sense of public international law
: the several states of the Union are neither foreign
: to the United States nor to each other, they are
: foreign in the field of private international law."
: Robinson v. Norato, 162 A.L.R. 362, 71 R.I. 256,
: 43 A.2d 467 (1945).

: : Yes, the several states are foreign with respect
: : to each other, just as each is foreign with
: : respect to the municipal jurisdiction of the
: : federal government. Thus, income earned
: : inside the several states, is "foreign earned
: : income," for purposes of Form 2555.

: : See the winning brief in Knox v. U.S. et al.,
: : for proof.

: :
: : /s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]