Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Taxpayer is not a “c itizen” of the United States??

Expand Messages
  • Daniel Nieves
    This post is not to be construed as legal advice.  For Educational purposes only.  I cant trust anything the IRS publications say. Internal revenue Manual
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      This post is not to be construed as legal advice.  For Educational purposes only. 

      I cant trust anything the IRS publications say.

      Internal revenue Manual

      4.10.7.2.8

      1. IRS publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors.  They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating service positions, and include worksheets.  Publications are nonbinding on the service and do not necessarily cover all positions on a given issue.  While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.

      Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
      Importance of Court Decisions

      1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
      Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

      If a man is domiciled in the US as defined by the IRS you must also be subject to the IRC.  Being domiciled in the statutory US makes you a what?(rhetorical question)

      "Residence or Domicile is the adequate basis of taxation
      including, income, property and death taxes. Residence creates a universal reciprocal duty of protection by the State and allegiance and support by the citizen. The latter obviously includes a duty to pay taxes, and their nature and measure is largely a political matter [not a legal matter]."

      Miller Brothers Company v. Maryland, 347 U.s. 340 (1954).





      --- On Wed, 2/17/10, vze4bqdp@... <vze4bqdp@...> wrote:

      From: vze4bqdp@... <vze4bqdp@...>
      Subject: Re: [tips_and_tricks] Taxpayer is not a “citizen” of the United States??
      To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 6:56 PM

       

      At 10-0217 16:14, you wrote:

      "The Law: The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines the basis for United States citizenship, stating that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Fourteenth Amendment therefore establishes simultaneous state and federal citizenship. Claims that individuals are not citizens of the United States but are solely citizens of a sovereign state and not subject to federal taxation have been uniformly rejected by the courts. The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2007-22, 2007-14 I.R.B. 866, warning taxpayers of the consequences of making this frivolous argument.

      I don't offer this thought as encouragement for claiming that non-citizens cannot be assessed an income tax, quite the opposite, but I do believe you have made an important mistake otherwise.

      The 14th Amendment does read as you say. Gaining citizenship in the state of residence on the basis of having been born in the United States, however, is quite different from gaining American citizenship on the basis of having been born in one of the (sovereign) states. A state of residence is not, necessarily, the state of birth.

      The wording of the 14th Amendment, itself, does seem to defeat any opportunity for addressing citizenship of those born in one of the states of the Union. To that extent I have come to accept the 14th Amendment as particularly narrow in scope and entirely irrelevant among states which now acknowledge citizenship as a function of live births within their respective borders. In my mind, citizenship has returned to being a common law question. The alternative would seem to admit to any number of unreconcilable issues and unanswerable questions.





    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.