Nonresident Alien vs. Resident Alien (or Citizen)
Brandon Christopher Russell
(Some more information I found on the Web. Response encouraged. It is
very long, so you will probably have to read it off-line).
The Matrix
column 1: column 2:
+-----------------------------------+
| United States** | |
| citizen | alien |
|-----------------+-----------------|
| | |
| | |
resident | X | X | row 1
| | |
|-----------------+-----------------|
| | |
| | |
nonresident | X | | row 2
| | |
+-----------------------------------+
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**. ... As to tax on nonresident
alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.
[26 CFR
1.1-1(b)]
(Note that two asterisks were used. The author quoting this thus means
to say that the definition for United States here would be the "federal
zone".)
Thus, the regulations impose an income tax on all citizens, whether they
are resident or nonresident, and on all residents, whether they are
citizens or aliens. These same regulations define a United States**
citizen as someone who is either born or naturalized in the United
States** and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States**,
as follows:
Every person born or naturalized in the United States**
and
subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.
[26 CFR
1.1-1(c)]
The official IRS 'Publications' are another excellent source of evidence
which supports the validity of The Matrix. These publications can be
obtained by ordering them directly from the Internal Revenue Service.
For example, Publication number 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, begins
with the following statements:
Introduction
For tax purposes, an alien is an individual who is not
a
U.S.** citizen. Aliens are classified as nonresident
aliens
and resident aliens. ...
Clearly, an alien is an individual who is not a U.S.** citizen. Aliens
are individuals who were born outside of the federal zone, and who never
elected to become U.S.** citizens via naturalization. Publication 519
then explains the difference between a resident alien and a nonresident
alien, as follows:
Resident or nonresident?
Resident aliens generally are taxed on their
worldwide
income, the same as U.S.** citizens. Nonresident
aliens
generally are taxed only on their income from sources
within
the United States**. ...
Nonresident aliens are taxed on their U.S.** source
income
(and on certain foreign source income that is
effectively
connected with a trade or business in the United States**).
How does one become a 'resident' of the United States**? Remember, as
used in the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations, the term 'United
States**' means the area over which Congress exercises exclusive
legislative jurisdiction, that is, the federal zone. The IRC contains a
relatively clear definition of the terms 'resident alien' and
'nonresident alien', as follows:
Definition of Resident Alien and Nonresident Alien. --
(1) In General. -- For purposes of this title (other than
subtitle B) --
(A) Resident Alien. -- An alien individual shall
be
treated as a resident of the United States**
with
respect to any calendar year if (and only if)
such
individual meets the requirements of clause
(i),
(ii), or (iii):
(i) Lawfully Admitted for Permanent
Residence.
-- Such individual is a lawful
permanent
resident of the United States** at any
time
during such calendar year.
(ii) Substantial Presence Test.
-- Such individual makes the
election
provided in paragraph (3).
(iii) First Year Election.
-- Such individual makes the
election
provided in paragraph (4).
(B) Nonresident Alien. -- An individual is
a
nonresident alien if such individual is neither
a
citizen of the United States** nor a resident
of
the United States** (within the meaning
of
subparagraph (A)).
[IRC
7701(b)]
Being lawfully admitted for permanent residence is also called 'the
green card test'. IRS Publication 519 explains the green card test as
follows:
You are a resident for tax purposes if you are a
lawful
permanent resident of the United States** at any time
during
the calendar year. ... This is known as the 'green
card'
test. You are a lawful permanent resident of the
United
States** at any time if you have been given the
privilege,
according to the immigration laws, of residing
permanently
in the United States** as an immigrant, and this status
has
not been taken away and has not been administratively
or
judicially determined to have been abandoned. You have
this
status if you have been issued an alien registration
card,
also known as a 'green card,' by the Immigration
and
Naturalization Service.
American Citizens who were born free in one of the 50 States of the
Union are not required to obtain an alien registration card, because
their presence in one of the 50 States is not a privilege; on the
contrary, it is an unalienable right which is guaranteed to them by the
United States Constitution because they were born free and Sovereign.
The Constitution refers to these people as 'natural born Citizens'
(2:1:5), 'free Persons' (1:2:3) and 'Citizens of a State' (3:2:1 and
4:2:1). On the basis of this criterion alone, the natural born State
Citizen enjoys a significant right which is not enjoyed by a person who
must apply for residence as a privilege granted by government.
(Throughout this book, the terms 'native American Citizen', 'native-born
American Citizen' and 'American Citizen' will be synonymous with
'natural born Citizens' as in 2:1:5 of the
Constitution, and with 'State Citizens' as in 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 of the
Constitution, to avoid problems that do arise solely from
terminology.)
Publication 519 explains the 'substantial presence test' using rules
which closely parallel those which are actually found in the
Internal Revenue Code:
You will be considered a U.S.** resident for tax purposes
if
you meet the substantial presence test for the
calendar
year. To meet this test, you must be physically present
in
the United States** on at least:
(1) 31 days during the current year, and
(2) 183 days during the 3-year period that
includes
the current year and the 2 years
immediately
before, counting:
- all the days you were present in the
current
year ... , and
- 1/3 of the days you were present in the
first
year before the current year ... , and
- 1/6 of the days you were present in
the
second year before the current year ...
Example. You were physically present in the United
States**
on 120 days in each of the years 1988, 1989, and 1990.
To
determine if you meet the substantial presence test
for
1990, count the full 120 days of presence in 1990, 40
days
in 1989 (1/3 of 120), and 20 days in 1988 (1/6 of
120).
Since the total for the 3-year period is 180 days, you
are
not considered a resident under the substantial
presence
test for 1990.
An individual may elect to be treated as a resident of the United
States**. The rules for making this election are found in the statute
(IRC Section 7701(b)(4)) and in the regulations which promulgate this
statute (26 CFR 1.871 et seq.). Why anyone would want to do this,
without actually residing in the United States**, remains a mystery to
me. Many Americans have been duped into believing that electing to be
treated as a resident is a 'beneficial' thing to do. Subsequent chapters
will discuss the so-called 'benefits' of U.S.** residence and U.S.**
citizenship by contrasting revocable privileges and unalienable rights.
At last, we arrive at the definition of 'nonresident alien'. We have
taken the long way around the mountain, but it is the only way around
the mountain (as it turns out) because Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue
Code imposes the tax on undefined 'individuals'. It is in Chapter 79,
near the end of the Code, where it states that an individual is a
nonresident alien if such individual is neither a citizen of the United
States** nor a resident of the United States**. If you were born outside
the federal zone, either as a Sovereign Citizen natural born free in one
of the 50 States of the Union, or as a native citizen of a foreign
country like France, then you are not automatically a 'citizen of the
United States**'. You may, of course, obtain 'U.S.** citizenship' by
applying for this 'privilege' with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, even if you are a Sovereign State Citizen. You may also
relinquish U.S.** citizenship at will, through a process known as
'expatriation'. If
you were born inside the federal zone, then you are automatically a
'citizen of the United States**'. The rules for residency have already
been reviewed above.
The validity of The Matrix is also reinforced clearly by a man named
Roger Foster who, in the year 1915, wrote a forgotten
treatise on the Act of 1913, the year the so-called 16th Amendment was
declared ratified. Some people argue that these
older materials are not relevant because they do not take into account
the changes that have occurred in the statute and its regulations.
Although changes have indeed occurred, the relevance of these materials
lies in their proximity in time to the origins of income taxation in
America, and to the intent of the original statutes. It is a principle
of law that the intent of a statute is always decisive. The following
excerpt is taken from A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax under the Act
of 1913, by Roger Foster of the New York Bar, published by The Lawyers
Co-operative Publishing Company, Rochester, New York, in 1915:
Section 35: Incidence of the tax with respect to persons.
Under [the statute] four possible cases arise. Two
are
of citizens, with reference to their residence
or
nonresidence, and two are of aliens, with reference
likewise
to their residence or nonresidence. There is no question
as
to the first two, that the whole income of every
citizen
whether residing at home or abroad is taxed; it is
so
specifically provided in the act. Similarly, it
is
expressly provided in the act that every person residing
in
the United States** shall pay a tax upon all his
income,
from whatever source derived, which without
question
includes all resident aliens. Whatever, therefore,
the
power of Congress may be, its intent is clear, that in
case
of non-resident aliens the only measure of the tax is
income
derived within the United States**.
With reference to aliens, therefore, it must
be
determined whether they are resident in which case they
must
pay the tax on their whole income; or if not
resident
whether they own property or carry on a business, trade
or
profession in the United States**.
In the latter case, they are taxable only
with
reference to income earned or paid in this country. If
they
are non-resident and do not derive an income from any
source
within our territory of course they are not taxable at all.
[pages 153 to
155]
Note, in particular, that Foster makes reference to 'income earned or
paid in this country'. You might be sorely tempted to conclude,
therefore, that he meant to define the 'United States' to mean the
several States of the Union (then 48) in addition to the federal zone.
He did not. This question is squarely settled in another section of his
treatise, in which he considers the incidence of the tax with respect to
territory:
Section 34: Incidence of the tax with respect to
territory
and places exempted from the same.
The tax ... is levied in Alaska, the District of
Columbia,
Porto Rico [sic] and the Philippine Islands. ... The
Act
expressly directs:
'That the word 'State' or 'United States**' when
used
in this section shall be construed to include
any
Territory, Alaska, the District of Columbia,
Porto
Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when
such
construction is necessary to carry out its
provisions.'
Although there might be ground for argument that the
phrase
'any Territory' applies to the Hawaiian Islands, it was
the
evident intention of Congress that the residents of
Hawaii,
at least when not citizens of the United States**,
are
exempt from the tax, for the reason that the Legislature
of
Hawaii has imposed an Income Tax upon all residents of
that
territory.
[pages 152 to
153]
It is important to appreciate that Roger Foster was considered by many
to be a recognized authority on federal law. In addition to his treatise
on the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913, he wrote numerous other treatises
and articles, including (but not limited to) 'Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States', 'Federal Judiciary Acts', and 'The
Federal Income Tax of 1894'. In the published opinion of author John L.
Sasscer, Sr., any doubts about Foster's intentions are completely
dissolved by his choice of words for the heading to Section 34:
incidence of the tax with respect to territory and places exempted from
the same:
If the income tax were levied within the states of the
union
there is no doubt that he would have so stated. The
absence
of any mention of the states of the union as
being
'territory' where the tax is imposed, shows that Mr.
Foster
recognized the income tax was imposed in those
mentioned
areas only, all of which were federal territories in 1913.
['Deciphering The Internal Revenue Code: The Keys
Revealed']
[by John L. Sasscer, Sr., in Economic Survival, page
27]
In subsequent chapters, a principle of statutory construction is applied
to the IRC to show that the inclusion of one thing is equivalent to the
exclusion of all other things not explicitly mentioned. This principle
also applies to persons and to places. Laws are constructed in strict
obedience to the rules of formal English; one of these formal rules is
that a 'noun' is either a person, a place, or a thing. Both Sasscer and
Foster evidence their keen awareness of these rules. Notice how Foster
mentions the incidence of the tax with respect to persons and to places.
The States of the Union are not mentioned anywhere among the places
where the tax is imposed.
There you have it! Four possible cases arise for natural born persons
like you and me. Go back to The Matrix and to the cover of this book.
Focus carefully on the lonely cell found at row 2, column 2. You are a
nonresident alien if you are not a citizen of the United States** and
you are not a resident of the United States**:
The term 'nonresident alien individual' means an
individual
whose residence is not within the United States**, and
who
is not a citizen of the United States**.
[26 CFR
1.871-2]
At this point, you may still be wondering if it is indeed correct to use
the term 'nonresident alien' to describe Sovereign State Citizens who
were born free in one of the 50 States of the Union, and who also live
and work in one of the 50 States of the Union. All that remains to prove
it correct is to verify the correct legal meaning of the term 'United
States**' in the IRC. This proof requires an overview of the several
meanings of the terms 'United States' and 'State' as they are defined in
the statute itself, in the case law, and elsewhere.
An exhaustive proof is not necessary here because other capable authors
have already completed a massive amount of work on this subject.
Interested readers are encouraged to review the Bibliography, found in
Appendix N, and to obtain copies of the key publications entitled
Good-Bye April 15th! by Boston T. Party, Which One Are You? by The
Informer, United States Citizen versus National of the United States and
A Ticket to Liberty both by Lori Jacques, The Omnibus by Ralph F.
Whittington, and Free At Last -- From the IRS by N. A. 'Doc' Scott.
Taken as a group, these authors have published a wealth of irrefutable
documentation which proves, beyond any doubt, the true meaning of
'nonresident alien' in the federal income tax statutes. Author Ralph
Whittington's book is particularly valuable because its appendices
contain true and correct copies of key documents like Roger Foster's
treatise and selected Acts of Congress.
The following anecdote summarizes nicely many of the key points which we
have covered thus far:
Several years ago in a coffee shop while talking with
a
friend about 'tax matters,' a man in the adjacent
booth
overheard our conversation and asked to join us.
The
conversation continued, and centered mainly on IRS
abuses.
This gentleman seemed particularly knowledgeable about
the
subject and we asked him what he did for a living. He
told
us his name and that he was an attorney with the
Tax
Division of the Department of Justice in
Washington.
Naturally, this put us on guard, but he quickly put us
at
ease by agreeing in large part with the conclusion we
had
drawn.
Reluctantly, I asked him this question, 'Why
are
defendants in federal district court always asked if
they
are 'citizens of the United States'?' He replied
without
hesitation, 'So we can determine jurisdiction. In
many
cases the federal court does not have jurisdiction over
a
citizen unless they testify they are a citizen of the
United
States -- meaning a federal citizen under the
14th
Amendment.'
My friend innocently asked, 'What's a federal
citizen?'
The attorney replied, 'That's a person who receives
benefits
or privileges or is an alien that has been admitted as
a
citizen of the United States.'
I quickly interjected, 'What if the individual
denied
being a citizen of the United States and claimed to be
a
sovereign citizen of Oklahoma?' The attorney bowled me
over
with, 'We don't get jurisdiction.'
He had to catch a plane.
[Freeman Letter, March 1989, page 6, emphasis
added]
[as quoted in 'Brief of Law for Zip Code
Implications']
[by Walter C. Updegrave, revised March 28,
1992]
The implications of the 14th Amendment are considered in some detail in
Chapter 11 and in Appendix Y. For now, it is best to remember that we
have in America a government of the United States**, and a government of
each of the several States; moreover, each of these governments is
distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own. In parallel
with the federal and State governments, there are federal citizens and
there are State Citizens. Federal citizens are the same as 'U.S.**
citizens' and 'citizens of the United States**'. If you are not a
federal citizen, then you are an 'alien' with respect to the federal
government. If you get confused, just recall the familiar distinction
between State and federal governments, and then remember that each has
citizens of its own. For consistency throughout this book, federal
citizens will be spelled with a lower-case 'c' and State Citizens will
be spelled with an UPPER-CASE 'C'. Happily for us, this convention is
strictly obeyed throughout the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and
throughout the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which promulgates the
IRC.
Summary
The citizen/alien distinction explains the two columns of The Matrix. By
definition, you are an alien with respect to the United States** if you
are not a citizen of the United States**. The happy result of The Matrix
is the legal and logical equation which exists between most State
Citizens and nonresident aliens. A citizen of the United States** is the
same thing as a federal citizen. Anyone who is not a federal citizen is
an 'alien' with respect to the United States**. Therefore, as long
as a State Citizen is not also a federal citizen, then such a State
Citizen is an 'alien' as that term is defined in the IRC. State
Citizens are free to reside wherever they choose, because their right to
travel is an unalienable right. However, the term 'resident' has a very
specific meaning in the IRC, whether it is used as an adjective or a
noun.
The resident/nonresident distinction explains the two rows of The
Matrix. An alien can be either a resident alien, or a nonresident alien.
There are three and only three criteria to distinguish resident aliens
from nonresident aliens: (1) lawful admission for permanent residence
(2) substantial presence test and (3) election to be treated as a
resident. All three of these criteria depend for their legal meaning
upon the statutory definition of 'United States'. Therefore, if State
Citizens are
'residents' of the United States** according to these criteria, then
they are resident aliens, by definition. If State Citizens are not
'residents' of the United States** according to these criteria, then
they are nonresident aliens, by definition. A deliberately confusing
statute is clarified considerably by understanding the legal and logical
equation which exists between State Citizens and nonresident aliens
(like Frank R. Brushaber). They are one and the same thing, to the
extent that State
Citizens do not reside in the United States** and to the extent that
they are not also federal citizens.
The issue of citizenship in America has been complicated a great deal
because the federal government recognizes the legal possibility that one
can be a federal citizen and a State citizen at the same time. This
possibility exists primarily because of Section 1 of the so-called 14th
Amendment. This amendment was carefully worded to recognize a dual
citizenship, federal and State, but the State citizenship which it
recognized was still a second class of citizenship. That is the reason
why the term 'citizens' in the 14th Amendment is spelled with a small
'c'. The mountain of litigation that resulted from this amendment
is proof that the issue of citizenship has become unnecessarily
complicated in America. There is a logical path through this
complexity, however, and a subsequent chapter will delineate this path
as clearly and as simply as possible (see Chapter 11: Sovereignty). The
main obstacles standing in the way of greater clarity are removed
entirely by the all important finding that the 14th Amendment was never
properly approved and adopted, just like the 16th Amendment.
Robin D. Roberts
First of all, this posting is inappropriate, just point to the URL.
Secondly, this stuff is all gibberish. It continues the fallacy we've
pointed out many times of using "definitions" from unrelated portions
of law. The IRS definition of "resident" and the immigration law
definition of "resident" are unrelated.
The other error it continues is to confuse Federal jurisdiction with
those parts of the Constitution that discuss "exclusive" jurisdiction.
The latter only refer to those places where the Federal gov't has the
general powers otherwise only available to states, like general police
powers.
Federal power to tax, or exercise any other enumerated power in the
Constitution, is in general not restricted across any part of the U.S.
by any such language listing "exclusive jurisdictions".
As I said, gibberish.
sci...@ix.netcom.com Robin Roberts Holder of Past Knowledge --- DVC
"A church is not the less sacred because curs frequently lift up their leg
against it, and affront the wall: It is the nature of dogs." Cato's Letters.
Brandon Christopher Russell
Dan Evans wrote:
>
> In <321579...@prodigy.com>, Brandon Christopher Russell <rjj...@prodigy.com> writes:
>
> >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**. ... As to tax on nonresident
> >alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.
> > [26 CFR
> >1.1-1(b)]
> >(Note that two asterisks were used. The author quoting this thus means
> >to say that the definition for United States here would be the "federal
> >zone".)
>
> born in one of the states of the United States, you are a citizen of
> the United States. See the first sentence to the first section of the
> 14th Amendment.
>
> >An exhaustive proof is not necessary here because other capable authors
> >have already completed a massive amount of work on this subject.
> >Interested readers are encouraged to review the Bibliography, found in
> >Appendix N, and to obtain copies of the key publications entitled
> >Good-Bye April 15th! by Boston T. Party, Which One Are You? by The
> >Informer, United States Citizen versus National of the United States and
> >A Ticket to Liberty both by Lori Jacques, The Omnibus by Ralph F.
> >Whittington, and Free At Last -- From the IRS by N. A. 'Doc' Scott.
> >Taken as a group, these authors have published a wealth of irrefutable
> >documentation which proves, beyond any doubt, the true meaning of
> >'nonresident alien' in the federal income tax statutes.
>
> in court, they are uniformly and universally referred to as "frivolous"
> and rejected. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has
> recently referred to them as "absurd." (Cheek v. United States.)
>
> You have not presented any "proof" at all. All you have done is
> state a conclusion and then show that, by a twisted application of
> the English language, you can force the Internal Revenue Code to
> conform to your conclusion. But that does not "prove" your
> conclusion, because you started by assuming your conclusion, that
> someone born in a state of the United States is not a citizen of
> the United States.
>
> There is no evidence to support your assumption of a "federal
> citizen" distinct from a "state citizen." In fact, the decisions of
> the United States Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases and
> U.S. v. Cruikshank are completely contrary to your assumption (and
> conclusion).
>
> > Several years ago in a coffee shop while talking with a
> > friend about 'tax matters,' a man in the adjacent booth
> > overheard our conversation and asked to join us.
>
> lawyer with the Treasury Department. That is "proof"?
>
> Dan Evans ************************
> http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
> This is not a legal opinion unless
> you agreed to pay for it.
> **********************************
Let me state for the record that the story which you were quoting is not
mine. All of that was something which I had quoted from an on-line book
on the Web. So stop attacking me, and keep to attacking the information.
Nevertheless, I still have a question for you: if "United States" means
just "United States" as you say (I believe that you are implying that
there is only one definition), then why does Black's Law Dictionary cite
three definitions for the term "United States"? How can "United States"
always mean the same thing if there are three definitions? I do not see
how all three definitions could apply at once, but maybe you can educate
me.
--Brandon Russell
"What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always
popular."
Dan Evans
>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**. ... As to tax on nonresident
>alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.
> [26 CFR
>1.1-1(b)]
>(Note that two asterisks were used. The author quoting this thus means
>to say that the definition for United States here would be the "federal
>zone".)
Stop right there. "United States" means "United States." If you are
born in one of the states of the United States, you are a citizen of
the United States. See the first sentence to the first section of the
14th Amendment.
>An exhaustive proof is not necessary here because other capable authors
>have already completed a massive amount of work on this subject.
>Interested readers are encouraged to review the Bibliography, found in
>Appendix N, and to obtain copies of the key publications entitled
>Good-Bye April 15th! by Boston T. Party, Which One Are You? by The
>Informer, United States Citizen versus National of the United States and
>A Ticket to Liberty both by Lori Jacques, The Omnibus by Ralph F.
>Whittington, and Free At Last -- From the IRS by N. A. 'Doc' Scott.
>Taken as a group, these authors have published a wealth of irrefutable
>documentation which proves, beyond any doubt, the true meaning of
>'nonresident alien' in the federal income tax statutes.
Proves "beyond any doubt"? And yet when these arguments are made
in court, they are uniformly and universally referred to as "frivolous"
and rejected. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has
recently referred to them as "absurd." (Cheek v. United States.)
You have not presented any "proof" at all. All you have done is
state a conclusion and then show that, by a twisted application of
the English language, you can force the Internal Revenue Code to
conform to your conclusion. But that does not "prove" your
conclusion, because you started by assuming your conclusion, that
someone born in a state of the United States is not a citizen of
the United States.
There is no evidence to support your assumption of a "federal
citizen" distinct from a "state citizen." In fact, the decisions of
the United States Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases and
U.S. v. Cruikshank are completely contrary to your assumption (and
conclusion).
> Several years ago in a coffee shop while talking with a
> friend about 'tax matters,' a man in the adjacent booth
> overheard our conversation and asked to join us.
Great. You have an unsubstantiated conversation with an unnamed
Dan Howell
In article <321902...@prodigy.com>, Brandon Christopher Russell <rjj...@prodigy.com> writes:
> Nevertheless, I still have a question for you: if "United States" means
> just "United States" as you say (I believe that you are implying that
> there is only one definition), then why does Black's Law Dictionary cite
> three definitions for the term "United States"? How can "United States"
> always mean the same thing if there are three definitions? I do not see
> how all three definitions could apply at once, but maybe you can educate
> me.
Because the three meanings are not describing distinct entities, but
different aspects of one entity. If I say, "Fred is a plumber, a father,
and an athlete," am I talking about three different people?
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
Dave Cinege
But that analogy doesn't fit since this country is made up of 51 seperate
and distinct entities......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 'Kill a Cop' Cinege (aka Psychopath #3) --- Super Genius at Large
http://www.psychosis.com/ Happiness is a full bag of 34-0-0.....
Harry Browne for President in '96 Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
http://www.rahul.net/browne/ http://www.lp.org/
Dan Howell
In article <4vmmqp$d...@earth.superlink.net>, dci...@superlink.net (Dave Cinege) writes:
> In <4vijmi$k...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com>, dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell) writes:
> >Because the three meanings are not describing distinct entities, but
> >different aspects of one entity. If I say, "Fred is a plumber, a father,
> >and an athlete," am I talking about three different people?
>
> But that analogy doesn't fit since this country is made up of 51 seperate
> and distinct entities......
Which *three* of the 51 do you think "United States" describes?
By the way, your count is short by about 250 million or so.
> Harry Browne for President in '96 Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
> http://www.rahul.net/browne/ http://www.lp.org/
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
Scott Dunn
> In article <4vmmqp$d...@earth.superlink.net>, dci...@superlink.net (Dave
Cinege) writes:
> > In <4vijmi$k...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com>, dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan
Howell) writes:
> > >Because the three meanings are not describing distinct entities, but
> > >different aspects of one entity. If I say, "Fred is a plumber, a father,
> > >and an athlete," am I talking about three different people?
> >
> > But that analogy doesn't fit since this country is made up of 51 seperate
> > and distinct entities......
Gee whiz. Maybe you should look in the index to the codes. You will find
about 400 different definitions of "United States" for a variety of
contexts.
>
> Which *three* of the 51 do you think "United States" describes?
>
But just to make things fun. Check out how California feels about the
definitions:
17017. "United States," when used in a geographical sense, includes
the states, the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the
United States.
This one leaves some room for the states.
17018. "State" includes the District of Columbia, and the
possessions of the United States.
This one does not. And if anyone thinks includes means "in addition to"
forget it. You cannot extend the application of the law beyond what is
explicit in the text. Show me one Supreme Court case that says you can
and I will show one that says you can't.
> By the way, your count is short by about 250 million or so.
>
> > Harry Browne for President in '96 Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
> > http://www.rahul.net/browne/ http://www.lp.org/
>
> --
> Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
--
Scott Dunn, FOIA/PA - California PRA/IPA researcher, tutor
sc...@netzone.com : http://www.netzone.com/~scott/index.html
Congress doesn't read or write the laws it passes.
Americans don't read the laws the Congress passes.
If Congress passed gas, Americans would read about it.
Ram Samudrala
Brandon Christopher Russell (rjj...@prodigy.com) wrote:
>An individual may elect to be treated as a resident of the United
>States**. The rules for making this election are found in the statute
>(IRC Section 7701(b)(4)) and in the regulations which promulgate this
>statute (26 CFR 1.871 et seq.). Why anyone would want to do this,
>without actually residing in the United States**, remains a mystery to
>me.
Yes, or even with residing in the United States, but here it appears
as though there's a choice regarding the election. But I don't think
there is---you are a resident by default once you've been here long
enough (there are exceptions to the substantial presence test I
believe) unless you can show otherwise (closer connection to a foreign
country, etc.).
The problem (in general) with this is that you can be a resident or
nonresident of the United States (INS terms), and you can be a
resident or nonresident for tax purposes. An "alien" is simply
someone who's a nonresident individual according to INS, no?
--Ram
m...@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
TCP impementations will follow a general principle of robustness: be
conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.
--Jonathan Postel in RFC 793, writing about TCP
Dave Cinege
In <4vtkcl$7...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com>, dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell) writes:
>In article <4vmmqp$d...@earth.superlink.net>, dci...@superlink.net (Dave Cinege) writes:
>> In <4vijmi$k...@news.cp10.es.xerox.com>, dho...@es.xerox.com (Dan Howell) writes:
>> >Because the three meanings are not describing distinct entities, but
>> >different aspects of one entity. If I say, "Fred is a plumber, a father,
>> >and an athlete," am I talking about three different people?
>>
>> But that analogy doesn't fit since this country is made up of 51 seperate
>> and distinct entities......
>
United States can be used 1 of 3 seperate ways:
#1 The name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of
other sovereigns in the family of nations (Japan, France, etc)
#2 The terrotory over which the *sovereignty* of the United States extends
(DC, gaum, etc)
#3 The collective names of the states which are united by and under the
Constitution.
>By the way, your count is short by about 250 million or so.
So you consider the citizenry artificial entiies owing their existence and
thus subservience to the state?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave 'Kill a Cop' Cinege (aka Psychopath #3) --- Super Genius at Large
http://www.psychosis.com/ Happiness is a full bag of 34-0-0.....
Harry Browne for President in '96 Libertarian Party 1-800-682-1776
http://www.rahul.net/browne/ http://www.lp.org/
Dan Howell
In article <5029td$f...@hecate.umd.edu>, r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) writes:
> The problem (in general) with this is that you can be a resident or
> nonresident of the United States (INS terms), and you can be a
> resident or nonresident for tax purposes. An "alien" is simply
> someone who's a nonresident individual according to INS, no?
No, an alien is someone who is not a citizen (or national), whether
resident or nonresident.
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
Ram Samudrala
Dan Howell (dho...@es.xerox.com) wrote:
>No, an alien is someone who is not a citizen (or national), whether
>resident or nonresident.
I stand corrected (I think---are green card holders resident aliens,
then?). What I meant is that you can be a nonresident (as far as INS
is concerned) and be taxed as a resident.
--Ram
Tell me why I have to be a powerslave?
I don't want to die I'm a god why can't I live on?
When the life giver dies all around is laid waste.
And In my last hour I'm a slave to the power of death. ---Iron Maiden
Dan Howell
In article <scott-28089...@pay-ip-7.netzone.com>, sc...@netzone.com (Scott Dunn) writes:
> 17018. "State" includes the District of Columbia, and the
> possessions of the United States.
>
> This one does not. And if anyone thinks includes means "in addition to"
> forget it. You cannot extend the application of the law beyond what is
> explicit in the text. Show me one Supreme Court case that says you can
> and I will show one that says you can't.
Scott, I can't believe you're still holding on to this non sequitur.
"State" is an explicit term with an explicit meaning, and including
things other than States under the term doesn't exclude actual States
from the meaning of "State". Show me one *California* Supreme Court
case that says it does and I'll show you a quote either taken out of
context or fabricated.
Since you're talking about a California statute, I hope you know
that only California Supreme Court decisions are valid in interpreting
it. All the U.S. Supreme Court can do about a state statute is
determine whether it violates the U.S. Constitution.
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>
Dan Howell
In article <509vbg$5...@hecate.umd.edu>, r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) writes:
> Dan Howell (dho...@es.xerox.com) wrote:
>
> >No, an alien is someone who is not a citizen (or national), whether
> >resident or nonresident.
>
> I stand corrected (I think---are green card holders resident aliens,
> then?).
Yes.
> What I meant is that you can be a nonresident (as far as INS
> is concerned) and be taxed as a resident.
This is probably true, although I haven't verified it.
--
Dan Howell <dho...@es.xerox.com>