Re: [tips_and_tricks] Natural person
Naturalized person via the 14th admendment as oposed to Native
people by birth of the postertiy?
How would one point this out or establish the distinctions?
Does this tie in to definitions of a National as mentioned
> Its means the person naturalized, after all, persons
> (corporations)cannot be
> born(issue) into the United States (municipal corporation). It
> took me a while to figure
> this out, but after doing an indepth study into Title 26, and
> status, it became apparent
> it had nothing to do with human beings(a monster, who may or may
> not be deformed, but is unable to inherit)or a man. -M
> > --- hobot <hobot@m...> wrote:
- I think that there a few DISTICTIONS that need to be made.
Thankfully Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) states "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
So now we need to DETIREMINE which DEFINITION of UNITED STATES is
being used, as there are THREE DEFINITIONS.
"The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several
senses.It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the
position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of
nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty
of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672] tends, or it may be the
name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."
HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
Contrary to the many MISTAKEN BELIEFS about WHO & WHAT are TAXED
under THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, 26CFR1.6012-1 CLEARLY STATES which
INDIVIDUALS are REQUIRED to make a RETURN OF INCOME.
Sec. 1.6012-1 Individuals required to make returns of income.
(a) Individual citizen or resident--(1) In general. Except as
provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, an income tax return
must be filed by every individual for each taxable year beginning
before January 1, 1973, during which he receives $600 or more of
gross income, and for each taxable year beginning after December
31,1972, during which he receives $750 or more of gross income, if
such individual is:...
(b) Return of nonresident alien individual--(1) Requirement of
return--(i) In general. Except as otherwise provided in
subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, every nonresident alien
individual (other than one treated as a resident under section 6013
(g) or (h)) who is engaged in trade or business in the United States
at any time during the taxable year or who has income which is
subject to taxation under subtitle A of the Code shall make a return
on Form 1040NR. For this purpose it is immaterial that the gross
income for the taxable year is less than the minimum amount
specified in section 6012(a) for making a return. Thus, a
nonresident alien individual who is engaged in a trade or business
in the United States at any time during the taxable year is required
to file a return on Form 1040 NR even though (a) he has no income
which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or
business in the United States, (b) he has no income from sources
within the United States, or (c) his income is exempt from income
tax by reason of an income tax convention or any section of the
Code. However, if the nonresident alien individual has no gross
income for the taxable year, he is not required to complete the
return schedules but must attach a
statement to the return indicating the nature of any exclusions
claimed and the amount of such exclusions to the extent such amounts
are readily determinable.
(c) Cross reference. For returns by fiduciaries for individuals,
estates, and trusts, see Sec. 1.6012-3.
Living in the United States of America is not a PRIVILEGE for one
who is born in one of the several States, is it?
It is our BIRTHRIGHT.
As is the ability for an AMERICAN to go out and make a living.
"It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his
own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property,
so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor
man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to
hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he
thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation
of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the
liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to
employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks
proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think
proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.
As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of
morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be
impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all
action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions
be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily
expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel
of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-
is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere
statement-'that all men are [111 U.S. 746, 757] endowed'-not by
edicts of emperors, or deerees of parliament, or acts of congress,
but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is,
rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away,
except in punishment of crime-'and tha among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not
grant them, but secure them-
'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights,
as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue
their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful
business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal
rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop
their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The
common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and
pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed
in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in
this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to
pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied
to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a
distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an
essential element of that freedom which they claim as their
birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man
has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other
property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of
the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands,
and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what
manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain
violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest
encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those
who might be
disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what
he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they
think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10. " BUTCHERS' UNION
CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
It's one of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, isn't it?
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the
mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an
artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the
state; but theindividuals' Right to live and own property are
natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be
imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)
Now for a Canadian Citizen to live and work in one of the several
States it would be a PRIVILEGE, wouldn't it?
So we obviously need to DISTINGUISH the FACT that the "citizen of
the United States" mentioned in
26CFR1.6012-1 is not the GENERIC TERM used in the Constitution
(which was a Citizen of one of the several
STATES of the Union), but the US CITIZEN (FEDRAL) created by
CONGRESS in the 14th Amendment.
"The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by
naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the
constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or
a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this
constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;'
and 'the congress shall have power to
establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Const. art. 2, 1; art.
1, 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was
prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the
fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there
had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this
court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19
How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or
black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in
the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power,
should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which
they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v.
West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two
sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [112
U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The
evident meaning of these last words is, 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
immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in
the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.
Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at
the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being
naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the
naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by
which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the
territorial limits of
the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to,
one of the Indiana tribes, (an alien though dependent power,)
although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no
more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof,' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth
amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government
born within the domain of that government, or the children born
within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers
of foreign nations. This view is confirmed by the second
section of the fourteenth amendment, which provides
that 'representatives shall be apportioned among the several states
according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of
persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.' Slavery having
been abolished, and the persons formerly held as slaves made
citizens, this clauses fixing the apportionment of representatives
has abrogated so much of the corresponding clause of the original
constitution as counted only three-fifths of such persons. But
Indians not taxed are still excluded from the count, for the reason
that they are not citizens. Their absolute exclusion from the basis
of representation, in which all other persons are now included, is
wholly inconsistent with their being considered citizens. So the
further provision of the second section for a propor- [112 U.S. 94,
103] tionate reduction of the basis of the representation of any
state in which the right to vote for presidential electors,
representatives in congress, or executive or judicial officers or
members of the legislature of a state, is denied, except for
participation in rebellion or other crime, to 'any of the male
inhabitants of such state,
being twenty-one years of age and citizens of the United States,'
cannot apply to a denial of the elective franchise to Indians not
taxed, who form no part of the people entitled to representation."
ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
Since my passport says that I live in the United States of America
and (not the UNITED STATES), I take that as EVIDENCE that I AM NOT a
Too bad most people do not realize that CITIZENSHIP & NATIONALITY
are different things.
Patrick in California
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a
hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." --
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, hobot <hobot@m...> wrote:
> Naturalized person via the 14th admendment as oposed to Native
> people by birth of the postertiy?
> How would one point this out or establish the distinctions?
> Does this tie in to definitions of a National as mentioned
> in Passports?
> mel wrote:
> > Its means the person naturalized, after all, persons
> > (corporations)cannot be
> > born(issue) into the United States (municipal corporation). It
> > took me a while to figure
> > this out, but after doing an indepth study into Title 26, and
> > status, it became apparent
> > it had nothing to do with human beings(a monster, who may or may
> > not be deformed, but is unable to inherit)or a man. -M
> > > --- hobot <hobot@m...> wrote:
Have you considered the regulation may exceed the statute ?
Also, have you researched the effect on construction of the phrase "In general" ?
The law is that you cannot argue the law until after you've paid. The tax system is one of corrective justice. The regulations are that you cannot pay without conceding a duty to pay.
That's the problem. No solution will be found by going over old, well trampled ground which wil never be heard in a court.