This too is not a permanent solution and can come back to bite people, because it is an insufficient argument. You may well be arguing that you are not a 26 USC 7701(b) resident alien because of the definitions of "United States" and "State" in that section. However, even if you were an NRA you would still be taxed on your income, so you need to determine whether your income is accurately reported by yourself and all information return preparers. Many (not all) are told they have accrued significant penalties such as $5,000 for frivolous filing, so you need to be prepared for that risk, even years later. It's frivolous to say merely "I'm an NRA therefore I can't have income", because it's still possible to have income. There's still time to learn the rest of the law and to ensure your record is complete and correct.
The right suggestion is the fact that "income" is not defined by statute or code. In fact Scotus has observed that to define income strictly would likely be "precarious" to the current system.
Obviously foreign money that changes hands between foreigners with no American nexus whatsoever cannot be "income" because Congress has no power to tax it. Therefore it's safe to say that Congress can only tax money transfers where someone alleges federal nexus. The trick is to determine how that allegation is made. It's reasonable to start by looking at the information returns that fly so wildly this season, because they are relied on by both the IRS and the self-assessors to be accurate statements of income. If you submit an information return to the IRS it is presumed you agree it is correct. Since virtually all whom the IRS has collected from have had information returns submitted on their behalf, it's reasonable that the information return alleges federal nexus. Do you see where this is going?
Agreed, but its also your responsibility to refute any w-2 or 1099 forms when you file. But now youre arguing income vs compensation, it doesnt end there.
Ultimately you have to rescind your consent to have a SS number assigned to you. From my understanding they wont actually update any records but you can use that letter to the SSA as evidence and hold them liable for the error resulting from their inaction.
the downside: you give up all access to federal programs. social security, medicaid, unemployment, all of it.
It's not necessary to rescind the SS number, but if you can do so (or become Amish and get a legacy exception) all the better. The connection to the SS number, like the NRA argument, is not the nexus involved.
Yes, if a W-2 or 1099 series information return is incorrect, it should be corrected by accurate testimony. I'm not arguing income vs. compensation; according to 26 USC 61, income includes compensation for services. Therefore it's essential to read the law to determine if information returns are correct, and it's one's responsibility to ensure that everything one reports to the IRS is correct according to the law. Any tax preparer can tell you the procedures for correcting an information return that a payor refuses to correct, although they may not agree with the reasoning that leads one to ask the question; the standard procedures are the remedy prescribed by law for correcting such reporting errors and should be followed. Since the IRS is designed to take advantage of any error and to assume the worst as to amounts due, without any incentive to help the filer produce correct testimony or demonstrate the situation to be less than the worst, I tell everyone to learn the law and apply it scrupulously.
Please see what I wrote about NRAs. Also, it would help you if you answered my question instead of focusing on zip codes. The several states are "foreign" in one sense and "domestic" in another, and PR, VI, AS and other territories are "domestic" in many senses too, so unless legal context is specified the claim is void for vagueness. Focus on this: what is an example of an information return that is typically received this time of year alleging that income was paid in certain categories in the prior year? There are many good answers. Whichever one(s) you pick, it's easy to find the law that specifies what should be reported on that form, trace the definitions inherent in that law, and determine whether the reporting is correct. But just because it's easy doesn't mean that people want to do it when they can rely on what other people have told them instead of researching for themselves. You're a researcher of some experience, so I don't know why you wouldn't answer my simple question or continue to propose other avenues without providing sources. I'm attracted to this forum because it's high-effort.
Brushaber stated in his case that he was a New York citizen. He was born in New York. The US Treasury, in TD2313, referred to him as a nonresident alien.
TD 2313, despite that unique interpretation that floats over its head, gives no benefit to the claim that NRA status helps anyone. It appears on p. 53-55 of Treasury Decisions volume 18 (1916) and says, "The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens ... as in the case of citizens and resident aliens." It never says Brushaber was an NRA, it says that pursuant to the (very sweeping) Brushaber decision it should be noted, if anyone asks, that NRAs pay taxes the same as residents and citizens.
Again, the only way to solve the problem is to read the original texts. If you have income, pay the tax, if you don't, don't. If an information return alleges that you have income when you didn't, the ordinary means of correcting that allegation should be used, using the definitions for classes of income as found in the law. Nothing to do with NRA status, gold, bankers, reparations, corporations per se, or any of the other imaginative interpretations not based on law. It does have to do with federal nexus, but unless the federal nexus is specifically defined and all classes of nexus enumerated, sweeping statements about nexus are usually wrong. The nature of the multilayered scheme makes it so because each layer has different terms.
You are partly correct. Brushaber claimed that he was being taxed on dividends from Union Pacific Railroad in Utah. If UP had been a Utah corporation, Brushaber would not have been taxed. He was taxed because UP was chartered by Congress, therefore making it a source from within the United States (federal government/DC/Congress).
i did that shit back in 2020, filed as nra and got my money back.
DISCLAIMER: do not follow my footsteps if you dont know how to litigate in court. hiring a lawyer isnt going to help you.
This too is not a permanent solution and can come back to bite people, because it is an insufficient argument. You may well be arguing that you are not a 26 USC 7701(b) resident alien because of the definitions of "United States" and "State" in that section. However, even if you were an NRA you would still be taxed on your income, so you need to determine whether your income is accurately reported by yourself and all information return preparers. Many (not all) are told they have accrued significant penalties such as $5,000 for frivolous filing, so you need to be prepared for that risk, even years later. It's frivolous to say merely "I'm an NRA therefore I can't have income", because it's still possible to have income. There's still time to learn the rest of the law and to ensure your record is complete and correct.
u/AmateurExpert
I suspect there’s a better tactic myself, but not having used it yet, and not being proficient in it, I’m just going to stay back on this one.
Did give the suggestion of what direction I think it is. This solution seems risky for losing constitutional protections.
Just my relatively uninformed $0.02.
The right suggestion is the fact that "income" is not defined by statute or code. In fact Scotus has observed that to define income strictly would likely be "precarious" to the current system.
Obviously foreign money that changes hands between foreigners with no American nexus whatsoever cannot be "income" because Congress has no power to tax it. Therefore it's safe to say that Congress can only tax money transfers where someone alleges federal nexus. The trick is to determine how that allegation is made. It's reasonable to start by looking at the information returns that fly so wildly this season, because they are relied on by both the IRS and the self-assessors to be accurate statements of income. If you submit an information return to the IRS it is presumed you agree it is correct. Since virtually all whom the IRS has collected from have had information returns submitted on their behalf, it's reasonable that the information return alleges federal nexus. Do you see where this is going?
Agreed, but its also your responsibility to refute any w-2 or 1099 forms when you file. But now youre arguing income vs compensation, it doesnt end there.
Ultimately you have to rescind your consent to have a SS number assigned to you. From my understanding they wont actually update any records but you can use that letter to the SSA as evidence and hold them liable for the error resulting from their inaction.
the downside: you give up all access to federal programs. social security, medicaid, unemployment, all of it.
in theory; not financial advice.
It's not necessary to rescind the SS number, but if you can do so (or become Amish and get a legacy exception) all the better. The connection to the SS number, like the NRA argument, is not the nexus involved.
Yes, if a W-2 or 1099 series information return is incorrect, it should be corrected by accurate testimony. I'm not arguing income vs. compensation; according to 26 USC 61, income includes compensation for services. Therefore it's essential to read the law to determine if information returns are correct, and it's one's responsibility to ensure that everything one reports to the IRS is correct according to the law. Any tax preparer can tell you the procedures for correcting an information return that a payor refuses to correct, although they may not agree with the reasoning that leads one to ask the question; the standard procedures are the remedy prescribed by law for correcting such reporting errors and should be followed. Since the IRS is designed to take advantage of any error and to assume the worst as to amounts due, without any incentive to help the filer produce correct testimony or demonstrate the situation to be less than the worst, I tell everyone to learn the law and apply it scrupulously.
Non-resident alien?
correct, because i am foreign to the government in the context of 26 usc.
Anything outside of DC is technically foreign to the federal government. But if you live in a ZIP code that is a federal address, so...
Please see what I wrote about NRAs. Also, it would help you if you answered my question instead of focusing on zip codes. The several states are "foreign" in one sense and "domestic" in another, and PR, VI, AS and other territories are "domestic" in many senses too, so unless legal context is specified the claim is void for vagueness. Focus on this: what is an example of an information return that is typically received this time of year alleging that income was paid in certain categories in the prior year? There are many good answers. Whichever one(s) you pick, it's easy to find the law that specifies what should be reported on that form, trace the definitions inherent in that law, and determine whether the reporting is correct. But just because it's easy doesn't mean that people want to do it when they can rely on what other people have told them instead of researching for themselves. You're a researcher of some experience, so I don't know why you wouldn't answer my simple question or continue to propose other avenues without providing sources. I'm attracted to this forum because it's high-effort.
u/Furecrotch
Which relies on the false presumptions they make upon your property status to form a false nexus.
Also your zip code which is a federal phenomenon would have nothing to do with county property tax.
Fight the false presumptions instead of worrying about zip codes.
Brushaber stated in his case that he was a New York citizen. He was born in New York. The US Treasury, in TD2313, referred to him as a nonresident alien.
TD 2313, despite that unique interpretation that floats over its head, gives no benefit to the claim that NRA status helps anyone. It appears on p. 53-55 of Treasury Decisions volume 18 (1916) and says, "The normal tax shall be withheld at the source from income accrued to nonresident aliens ... as in the case of citizens and resident aliens." It never says Brushaber was an NRA, it says that pursuant to the (very sweeping) Brushaber decision it should be noted, if anyone asks, that NRAs pay taxes the same as residents and citizens.
Again, the only way to solve the problem is to read the original texts. If you have income, pay the tax, if you don't, don't. If an information return alleges that you have income when you didn't, the ordinary means of correcting that allegation should be used, using the definitions for classes of income as found in the law. Nothing to do with NRA status, gold, bankers, reparations, corporations per se, or any of the other imaginative interpretations not based on law. It does have to do with federal nexus, but unless the federal nexus is specifically defined and all classes of nexus enumerated, sweeping statements about nexus are usually wrong. The nature of the multilayered scheme makes it so because each layer has different terms.
c/AmateurExpert
You are partly correct. Brushaber claimed that he was being taxed on dividends from Union Pacific Railroad in Utah. If UP had been a Utah corporation, Brushaber would not have been taxed. He was taxed because UP was chartered by Congress, therefore making it a source from within the United States (federal government/DC/Congress).