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

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Natural person

Expand Messages
  • hobot
    OHHhhhh. 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
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2005
      OHHhhhh.
      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?

      hobot


      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:
    • paradoxmagnus
      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
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 2, 2005
        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
        United States."

        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
        collective
        name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution."
        HOOVEN & ALLISON CO. v. EVATT, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?
        court=us&vol=324&invol=652

        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.

        26CFR1.6012-1
        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.

        http://squid.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?
        TITLE=26&PART=1&SECTION=6012-1&TYPE=TEXT

        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
        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.
        ...
        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'-
        that
        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)
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?
        page=us/111/746.html

        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
        direct and
        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)
        http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?
        page=us/112/94.ht

        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
        US citizen.

        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." --
        Uncle Remus

        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, hobot <hobot@m...> wrote:
        > OHHhhhh.
        > 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?
        >
        > hobot
        >
        >
        > 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:
      • jm367
        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
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 2, 2005
          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.


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