So What Legitimate Ways Can Someone Be Excluded From Taxes?

[jaydee]

It wouldn't matter...From the IRS website:

Taxation of Resident Aliens:

A resident alien's income is generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen. If you are a resident alien, you must report all interest, dividends, wages, or other compensation for services, income from rental property or royalties, and other types of income on your U.S. tax return. You must report these amounts whether from sources within or outside the United States.

Taxation of Nonresident Aliens:

If you are any of the following, you must file a return:
- A nonresident alien individual engaged or considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States during the year.

- A nonresident alien individual not engaged in a trade or business in the United States with U.S. income on which the tax liability was not satisfied by the withholding of tax at the source.

But I don't claim to be any of the above. I'm not a citizen, I am not a resident, I am not a nonresident alien; I am just one man who happened to be born on this land but doesn't claim any affiliation to any government. I just go about life doing my own thing.

So I don't think that constitutes evasion or anything because I have no effective connection to the United States.

[The Operative]

Does anyone here really believe the following statement?

I play poker at Foxwoods and have been averaging winnings of about 90-100 thousand dollars a year, the past ten years. I always walk out with cash because you don't have to report anything under $10,000. If I have more than $10,000 in chips, I just cash out two smaller amounts at different parts of the casino.

What lives under a bridge and has a name which rymes with "droll?"

There are several people who earn a living playing poker and I know a few of them. Heck, a few years ago, I used to play online poker a couple of hours four or five nights a week and I won about $10k a year. So, the above statement by Jaydee is possible. However, I reported my winnings as the law requires.

Whether jaydee is winning or not is really irrelevant to a point. His premise that he doesn't have to pay taxes on any possible winnings is wrong.

[The Operative]

It wouldn't matter...From the IRS website:

Taxation of Resident Aliens:

A resident alien's income is generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen. If you are a resident alien, you must report all interest, dividends, wages, or other compensation for services, income from rental property or royalties, and other types of income on your U.S. tax return. You must report these amounts whether from sources within or outside the United States.

Taxation of Nonresident Aliens:

If you are any of the following, you must file a return:
- A nonresident alien individual engaged or considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States during the year.

- A nonresident alien individual not engaged in a trade or business in the United States with U.S. income on which the tax liability was not satisfied by the withholding of tax at the source.

But I don't claim to be any of the above. I'm not a citizen, I am not a resident, I am not a nonresident alien; I am just one man who happened to be born on this land but doesn't claim any affiliation to any government. I just go about life doing my own thing.

So I don't think that constitutes evasion or anything because I have no effective connection to the United States.

Were you born in any one of the fifty states? Or were you born in D.C.? If you were, you are most likely a U.S. citizen by birth. The only way to renounce U.S. citizenship is to travel to a foreign country, go to the U.S. consulate or embassy there and sign an oath of renunciation. That is the only legal way to renounce your U.S. citizenship that I am aware of. Simply proclaiming you are not a U.S. citizen has no legal effect and you are still bound by the laws (that includes tax laws) of this country.

[The Observer]

But I don't claim to be any of the above. I'm not a citizen, I am not a resident, I am not a nonresident alien; I am just one man who happened to be born on this land but doesn't claim any affiliation to any government. I just go about life doing my own thing.

So I don't think that constitutes evasion or anything because I have no effective connection to the United States.

But what you "think" does not excuse you from the obligations that the laws of the various governments has created for you.

Ed Brown "thought" that because he was a "sovereign person" that he didn't have to pay taxes and that he could not be convicted for breaking tax laws that he "thought" didn't apply to him. Yet he is prison today dealing with what is effectively a life sentence. So what he "thought" did nothing to change the outcome.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
But I don't claim to be any of the above. I'm not a citizen, I am not a resident, I am not a nonresident alien; I am just one man who happened to be born on this land but doesn't claim any affiliation to any government. I just go about life doing my own thing.

So I don't think that constitutes evasion or anything because I have no effective connection to the United States.

Sorry, Bud. It doesn't matter that you do or don't claim to be.

Having said that, there are quite a few of you (and not just gamblers), who stay out of touch with the system for the most part and can for fairly long periods of time. It has been progressively more and more difficult but the influx of illegal aliens has created a kind of gray-market for financial services that make it easier, albeit somewhat more expensive and certainly less convenient.

But I would suggest there will come a time when circumstances make the choices harder and harder to make as you live "outside."

Finally, knowing something about the casino industry - your story doesn't hold water.

[jg]

...I don't file or pay any taxes because I don't claim to be a U.S. citizen and no one can show that I am. I keep all my assets in private trusts and deal only in cash.

So it has been my experience, that if you aren't a U.S. citizen, they have no political jurisdiction to claim any taxes from you.

For a few examples of the court's continual rejection of similar arguments see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens

The claim that “[a] taxpayer’s income is excluded from taxation when the taxpayer rejects or renounces United States citizenship because the taxpayer is a citizen exclusively of a State (sometimes characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”), that is claimed to be a separate country or otherwise not subject to the laws of the United States” has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.

See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-14.pdf for a list of the frivolous positions subject to the penalty of $5,000.

I hope this helps you understand that your claim is not going to work in court. Others have claimed similarly and all have had to pay the price when prosecuted.

[BBFlatt]

And if perchance you are not a citizen, there is always the "substantial presence test". Spend 183 days in the U.S. in any given year, counting all days spent in the U.S. in the current year, plus 1/3 of the days present in the immediately preceding year, and 1/6 of the days present in the year before that, congratulations, you're a resident and subject to the income tax the same as a citizen.

[Prof]

And if perchance you are not a citizen, there is always the "substantial presence test". Spend 183 days in the U.S. in any given year, counting all days spent in the U.S. in the current year, plus 1/3 of the days present in the immediately preceding year, and 1/6 of the days present in the year before that, congratulations, you're a resident and subject to the income tax the same as a citizen.

To be blunt: If this guy is not a citizen of the US, let's report him to ICE so that he can be deported. And, since he is not a citizen, the protections of the US Constitution are of limited applicability. Again, what lives under a bridge? Sounds like "toll?"

[jaydee]

4. Born on this land - meaning somewhere in the U.S. of A. - automatically makes you a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, per the Constitution. Congratulations, that automatically makes (or will make) you a person who has to file a tax return. Ditto on the state side too. Want to argue against it in a court of law? See #1 above - different argument, same result.

I've read the Constitution, and I never saw the word "automatically" in it. So no one is "automatically" a citizen. It reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is obviously a completely separate issue to where one may or may not have been born.

It doesn't make sense that anyone should be "forced" to be part of the United States solely based on where they were born, which no human has any say over. So the Constitution must provide for that very fact with the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I don't think I have anything that subjects me to their jurisdiction.

Can any of you that claim to be United States citizens show me how you are citizens?

[.]

It doesn't make sense that anyone should be "forced" to be part of the United States solely based on where they were born, which no human has any say over.

Well, maybe not to you, but it will to any judge. End of troll story.

[jg]

Apparently you did not read the link to Dan Evans' site posted above.

Tax protesters (and white supremacists) also argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes those born within the states of the United States because only those born in the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the federal government. This is completely wrong, on several grounds:

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that “The phrase ’subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 678-688 (1898).

The phrase “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” had previously been used in Supreme Court opinions to include the states of the United States (e.g., The Exchange,), and similar language had been included in naturalization acts of Congress that were clearly intended to operate within the states of the United States. The Supreme Court has therefore concluded that “It is impossible ... to hold that persons ‘within the jurisdiction’ of one of the states of the Union are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 687 (1898).

Those born within the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States as that word is used within other clauses of the Constitution, including the reach of the judicial power of the United States in Article III. As explained above, the laws of the United States enacted by Congress under the Constitution of the United States are the “Supreme Law of the Land” and so all of the residents of all of the states of the United States are within the “jurisdiction” of the United States.

It has been uniformly held that the possessions (territories) of the United States are not within the meaning “United States” as used in the Constitution, and so persons born in territories of the United States are not citizens of the United States under the 14th Amendment. So, the Ninth Circuit has held that “birth in the Philippines during the territorial period does not constitute birth ‘in the United States’ under the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus does not give rise to United States citizenship.” Rabang v. INS, 35 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1994). See also, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 250, 251 (“t can nowhere be inferred that the territories were considered a part of the United States.”) (Notice that this is the exact opposite of what most tax protesters claim. They believe that “United States” in the 14th Amendment means the territories of the United States and not the states, but the courts have ruled the opposite, and denied U.S. citizenship to someone born in a territory of the United States.)

If the 14th Amendment did not apply to those born within the states, it would not apply to most former slaves (born in the Southern states), which would defeat the entire admitted purpose of the amendment.

See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#sovereigncitizens

[RyanMcC]

Do you have a driver's licence jaydee?

[The Operative]

4. Born on this land - meaning somewhere in the U.S. of A. - automatically makes you a "natural born citizen" of the United States of America, per the Constitution. Congratulations, that automatically makes (or will make) you a person who has to file a tax return. Ditto on the state side too. Want to argue against it in a court of law? See #1 above - different argument, same result.

I've read the Constitution, and I never saw the word "automatically" in it. So no one is "automatically" a citizen. It reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is obviously a completely separate issue to where one may or may not have been born.

It doesn't make sense that anyone should be "forced" to be part of the United States solely based on where they were born, which no human has any say over. So the Constitution must provide for that very fact with the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I don't think I have anything that subjects me to their jurisdiction.

Can any of you that claim to be United States citizens show me how you are citizens?

If you are born in any state of the United States, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless you are a child of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state or a child of alien enemies in hostile occupation. See 169 U.S. at 682.

BTW, do you consider yourself a citizen of any state?

EDIT: One more comment. The doctrine of "citizenship by birth" has its beginnings in common law that predates the United States. It was not dreamed up by the writers of the 14th amendment or any of the founding fathers.

[Famspear]

It doesn't make sense that anyone should be "forced" to be part of the United States solely based on where they were born, which no human has any say over. So the Constitution must provide for that very fact with the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Actually, it makes perfect sense. Why would or should it ever be otherwise? And that is indeed the law, as explained above.

Saying that you shouldn't be "forced" to be a United States citizen merely because you had no control over where you were born -- and that you should not be "forced" to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States merely because you had no control over where you were born -- when you were indeed born here, etc. -- makes about as much sense as saying (and is tantamount to saying) that you shouldn't be bound any U.S. federal or state laws enacted before you were born, since you had "no say" over the enactment of those laws.

[LOBO]

Jaydee still hasn't explained why he needs to hide his winnings if he doesn't think they are taxable.

[Gregg]

Earn or acquire by other means a few million dollars...
pay taxes on it as earned
invest it all in tax free municipal bonds
live tax free on the interest the rest of your life

your heirs then have to pay taxes on it when you die, provided it's a large enough amount

simple....

[Imalawman]

Damn, you fellow quatloosians are very quick. Let me guess...this troll has never taken a basic class on income taxation. If so, he/she would realize they are speaking gibberish.

[Brian Rookard]

He asked for legitimate ways to avoid income taxation. His "theories" are not legitimate.

So long as you are a citizen of the U.S. (which he is by birth) then he can be taxed on his worldwide income.

Of course, he is free to expatriate and leave the country, and so long as he earns no income from sources within the U.S., he will not be taxed. Now that is a legitimate way to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. However, make sure you move to a country that also does not impose income taxes.

[Demosthenes]

snip

Where ya' been Brian?

[jaydee]

Saying that you shouldn't be "forced" to be a United States citizen merely because you had no control over where you were born -- and that you should not be "forced" to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States merely because you had no control over where you were born -- when you were indeed born here, etc. -- makes about as much sense as saying (and is tantamount to saying) that you shouldn't be bound any U.S. federal or state laws enacted before you were born, since you had "no say" over the enactment of those laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly separates the two conditions and makes that distinction, Famspear. You must meet BOTH conditions to be a citizen.

So that is precisely what I am saying.

When I was born, I had no cognitive abilities, whatsoever. Neither did any of you, nor anyone in the history of the world. Newborn babies cannot decide things for themselves. But when we are born, we do not have a serial number and the words "PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES" branded on our backsides. No: We are born free and sovereign.

So when a child reaches the age of reasoning, and is able to make his own decisions, why would anyone, being fully informed on the subject, want to be a Unites States citizen?

Furthermore, no one can be forced to be a United States citizen, because the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. That is why it is clearly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment that you have to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it is a voluntary condition.

Let's look at it this way:

Does any one man have the authority to command any other man what to do? No. Of course not. So governments, which are nothing more than a creation in the minds of men, have no more authority than those men that created it. The United States government is only an artificial creation of men that does not exist in nature. It has no authority over anyone who does not agree to be subject to that artificial entity.

This was clearly recognized and is why they created the Thirteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides for the government to classify those over whom they are going to have authority. It is voluntary. It MUST be voluntary.

So if they cannot show how I volunteered into their jurisdiction, they have no authority to tax me.