Citizen of New York described as Nonresident Alien

In a famous tax case (Brushaber), a man from New York describes himself as a citizen of New York. After the case, the Treasury Department, in an official memo, refers to him as a nonresident alien. I am not bringing this up for tax reasons. I am bringing this up for the most important reason of knowing one’s political status.

Here is a portion of Brushaber’s petition, which states, “Frank R. Brushaber, a citizen of the State of New York…”

Portion of Brushaber decision

Here is a portion of Treasury Decision 2313 describing him as a nonresident alien:

“Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway [sic] Co., decided January 24, 1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to nonresident aliens in the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of October 3, 1913.” See TD2313

I think this is for two reasons:

  • New York is a (nation) state and citizens of this state do not, geographically, live on federal land. They are nonresident to federal land.
  • Politically, they are alien to federal jurisdiction.

This makes them nonresident and alien, hence nonresident aliens.

I embrace the label ‘nonresident alien‘ and ‘citizen of [my state]‘ when talking to officials from the federal jurisdiction. I am just like Brushaber. I am not a U.S. Citizen.

Please note, the Treasury Decision refers to domestic corporations, and domestic, in this case, means federal land, not one of the states in the union. Family Guardian notes the railroad was a corporation chartered in the federal Territory of Utah before it became a State.  As a territory, Utah was part of the federal United States [singular], and  as such, was a “domestic corporation” or “federal corporation” at the time it was formed.

Granted, Brushaber, who called himself a citizen of New York, can call himself whatever he wants and that does not make it so. However, since he did this in a brief to the Supreme Court, it likely was correct.

Brushaber also says he is a resident of the Borough of Brooklyn, and I am under the impression that saying one is a resident places one into the federal jurisdiction. However, maybe by first stating he is a citizen of the State of New York, using the word ‘resident’ has less significance.

See this interesting point, similar to my main point above, from an untitled book about taxes:

Under Amendment 14 a new concept of residing arose. It would seem that, as citizens of the United States [singular] [not the 50 states], all of the new kind of citizens living away from the political jurisdiction of the United States would have continued to be aliens, as to the state in which they “resided.” However, the 14th Amendment also made them citizens of that state – but continued to call them “residents” thereof. The Amendment does not apply to the sov’n citizen.

Thus, he continues to be alien to 14th Amendment citizenship and to that special residency; he is also nonresident to the areas of the political jurisdiction of the United States. He has been transformed by the 14th Amendment into a “nonresident alien,” since very few sov’n citizens live within the political jurisdiction of the United States. Read the book online.

Side point: The 1040NR is federal tax form for nonresident aliens.

Top of 1040NR form

Here are more points from NoThanksIRS:

  • TD 2313 says, “federally domestic corporations such as Union Pacific were subject to tax, and that even nonresident alien stockholders such as Brushaber were subject to withholding of tax from their profits.”
  • The Brushaber decision did not stop a tax on federal domestic corporations, meaning those owned or privileged by the federal government
  • Brushaber’s other stock investments were not taxed, even after the 16th amendment. [Though today, everyone thinks all investments in the 50 united states are taxable.]

A recent NoThanksIRS posts reminded me about Treasury Decision 2313:

@NothanksIRS: See also: Treasury Decision 2313, based on SCOTUS case Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad. TD 2313 refers to American national Frank Brushaber as an example of a “nonresident alien” for income tax purposes. If Brushaber was a nonresident alien, why can’t ANY American be one?

The correct vocalization is Brewshayber. Hat tip to LostHorizons for this.

Just in case, thou is not following all of this, it may help to know that U.S.ofA. is a union, not a nation-state. It’s a country, alright, but only in the sense of a body of land, as in the country versus the city. U.S. of A. is union of states (nation-states) that formed the U.S.ofA to manage about 17 tasks. The people in the states are state citizens, while the people in the territories managed by U.S.ofA are called federal citizens or U.S. citizens. See The United States is separate from the fifty states.

Please scroll down and subscribe to the newsletter.

Have a thought? Think out loud and think through an idea by posting a comment.

Also see:

New to the site?

  1. Review these slides
  2. Read this, 
  3. review this diagram of US vs USofA,
  4. read these six PDFs,
  5. watch Richard McDonald's seminar intro
  6. learn to speak like a simple man
  7. If this site ever goes down, the archive is on the wayback machine.

2 comments on “Citizen of New York described as Nonresident Alien

  1. Have you read my book, Why the Citizens of the Several States Are Not Generally Liable for the Federal Income Tax? The fed income tax is not an art 1, sec. 8, cl 1 tax. It is pursuant to 4.3.2 powers of congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.