Are you a citizen of the United States?

Published: Tue, 03/13/18

The IRS is making a claim that I owe an obligation to file a tax return to which I adamantly deny.

Because I have not filed such tax return(s) the IRS claims I owe a debt, to which I adamantly deny.

The following will explain for my reasoning and what I base my belief as to why the “subject-matter” of federal income tax is not mandatorily applicable to me.

The following is one of several reasons to support my belief and thus far, no attorney or tax professional has corrected me in my findings.

The definition of United States, State with clear explanation to the word “Includes” and “Including” and how I am not a citizen of the United States as defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)

Meaning of IRC terms “United States,” “State”.

Americans who are not citizens of the United States are not liable to income tax; to wit:

“Unless the defendant can establish that he is not a citizen of the United States, the IRS possesses authority to attempt to determine his federal tax liability.” [U.S.A. v. Slater (D. Delaware) 545 F.Supp. 179, 182 (1982)]

Title 26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Section 1 of the [Internal Revenue] Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ...

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject and subject to its [District of Columbia] jurisdiction is a citizen.

Title 5 USC § 552a(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

the term “individual” means a citizen of the United States ...

The controlling definition of the IRC terms “United States” and “State” is found in IRC § 7701, which provides, in pertinent part:

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed ...

United States

The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

State

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia …

The IRC term “includes,” used in the IRC definition of “United States,” is defined as follows:

The terms “includes” and “Including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. [IRC § 7701(c)]

The IRC § 7701(c) definition of “includes” is a hybrid composite of two of the principal rules of statutory construction/interpretation: (1) expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and (2) ejusdem generis, defined, respectively, as follows:

The rule ejusdem generis (of the same kind): when a list of specific items belonging to the same class is followed by general words (as in “cats, dogs, and other animals”), the general words are to be treated as confined to other items of the same class (in this example, to other domestic animals).
The rule expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of the one is the exclusion of the other): when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as exhaustive. For example, “weekends and public holidays” excludes ordinary weekdays.”^{^[1]}

Notwithstanding that the controlling definition of “State” (IRC 7701(a)(10)) does not reveal the full extent of the associated group or series encompassed by the said definition—only that the District of Columbia is construed to be a State—the preamble to the controlling definition of “United States” and “State,” IRC § 7701(a), supra, provides instruction as to how to identify the other States, besides the District of Columbia, that are embraced by the definition of “United States”; to wit:

When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed ... [Emphasis added.]

The definition of “State” is otherwise distinctly expressed in IRC § 3121(e)(1); to wit:

The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Use of the IRC term “includes” in the IRC § 3121(e)(1) definition of “State” requires that we identify other members of the associated group that are of the same general kind as those enumerated in IRC § 3121(e)(1), but not named.
Whereas, the District of Columbia is a State only because the controlling definition (IRC § 7701(a)(10)) construes it to be such—but identifies no other State—the District of Columbia is excluded^{^[2]} as a member of the same associated group or of the same general kind as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Secretary of the Treasury tells us that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa (IRC § 3121(e)(1)) are all insular U.S. possessions/ territories that “have their own governments and their own tax systems”; to wit, in pertinent part:

U.S. possessions can be divided into two groups:

Those that have their own governments and their own tax systems (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), and
Those that do not have their own governments and their own tax systems ...

The governments of the first group of territories impose their own income taxes and withholding taxes on their own residents... .^{^[3]} [Emphasis added.]

In addition to the four insular U.S. possessions that have their own respective government and tax system listed in the definition of “State” in IRC § 3121(e)(1), Steven Mnuchin tells us there is one—and only one—other: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Wherefore, the IRC term:

United States” (when used in a geographical sense) means the collective of the above (6) States^{^[4]} and no other thing.
“State” means the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and no other thing; see following example:

One of the most fruitful and conclusive methods for establishing the meaning of the term “State” in the IRC is to trace the history of changes to the United States Codes, which occurred when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted into the Union. It is instructive to illustrate these changes as they occurred in the IRC definitions of “State” found in the 1^st code amendment effective on January 3, 1995, when Alaska was admitted into the Union:

IRC 7701 (a) (10) Amended 1954 Code Sec. 7701 (a) (10) by striking out “Territories”, and by substituting “Territory of Hawaii”.

The 2^nd Code amendment became effective on August 21, 1995, when Hawaii was admitted to the Union:

IRC 7701 (a) (10) Amended 1954 Code Sec. 7701 (a) (10) by striking out “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”.

Applying these code changes we can reconstruct the IRC definitions of “State” as follows:

IRC 1954:

Alaska is a U.S. Territory

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Alaska joins the Union, strikeout “Territories” and substitute “Territory of Hawaii”:

Revision 1:

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a U.S. Territory

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the Territory of Hawaii and the District of Colombia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

Hawaii joins the Union, strikeout “the Territory of Hawaii and” immediately after the word “include”:

Revision 2

Alaska is a State of the Union

Hawaii is a State of the Union

7701 (a) (10): The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Notice how Alaska and Hawaii only fit these definitions of “State” before they were declared to be States of the United States of America, and now are hereby admitted into the Union on equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatsoever.[emphasis mine]

Furthermore, whereas the term “United States” is a collective of territorial-type “States” as defined in IRC, said term means only the District of Columbia when used or defined elsewhere in certain portions of certain bodies of law other than IRC in senses non-geographical; e.g., said term “United States” when used in a:

governmental sense means the District of Columbia; to wit:

The Congress shall have Power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation ... over such District ... as may ... become the Seat of the Government of the United States . [Emphasis added.] [Constitution, Article 1 § 8(17)]

The District is created a government by the name of the "District of Columbia" [Emphasis added.] [Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873—'74 § 2]

political sense means the District of Columbia; to wit:

"United States" means— (A) a Federal [District of Columbia municipa1^{^[5]}] corporation; . .. [28 USC Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 3002(15)]

commercial sense means the District of Columbia; to wit:

The United States is located in the District of Columbia. [Uniform Commercial Code § 9-307(h) and Florida Statutes 679.3071 (8)]

[1] A Dictionary of Law, 7th ed., Jonathan Law and Elizabeth Martin, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), s.v. "Interpretation, Rules and Principles of Statutory."

[2] Quce communi legi derogant stricte interpretantur. Laws which derogate from the common law ought to be strictly construed. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd rev., 8th ed., s.v. “Maxim.”

[3] http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Persons-Employed-In-U.S.-Possessions, “Persons Em-ployed In a U.S. Possession / Territory - FIT,” IRS.gov.

[4] Qucelibet jurisdictio cancellos suos habet. Every jurisdiction has its bounds. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 3rd rev., 8th ed., s.v. “Maxim.”

[5] Be it enacted . . . That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may . . . exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation . . . [Emphasis added.] "An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia," Ch. 62, Sec. 18, 16 Stat. 419, February 21, 1871; later legislated in "An Act Providing a Permanent Form of Government for the District of Columbia," Ch. 180, Sec. 1, 20 Stat. 102, June 11, 1878, to remain and continue as a municipal corporation (brought forward from the Act of 1871, as provided in the Act of March 2, 1877, amended and approved March 9, 1878, i.e., Sec. 2 of the Revised Statutes of the United States Relating to the District of Columbia . . . 1873—'74); as amended by the Act of June 28, 1935, 49 Stat. 430, ch. 332, Sec. 1 (Title 1, Section 102, District of Columbia Code (1940)).

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. A public corporation, created by government for political purposes, and having subordinate and local powers of legislation . . . [Emphasis added.] Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd ed., s.v. "Municipal corporation."

Christopher Chapman
WAKE UP AMERICANS
321.264.6383
americanliberties.llc@gmail.com
Help us, to help you, to help others to help Americans