The conspiracy forces Native Americans to pay

[The Observer]

JOSEPH V. METALLIC,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent, Appellee.

Release Date: MAY 31, 2007


Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Before

Lipez, Circuit Judge,
Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Howard, Circuit Judge.

Joseph V. Metallic on brief pro se.

Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Clark and Marion E.M. Erickson, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department of Justice on brief for appellee.

May 31, 2007

Per Curiam. Appellant Joseph Metallic appeals from an adverse United States Tax Court decision. We affirm.

In his tax petition, Metallic claimed he did not have to pay federal income tax because he is a Micmac Indian and a 1776 treaty with his tribe did not require the payment of taxes. In its Memorandum Opinion filed on June 13, 2006, the Tax Court correctly rejected that claim, citing pertinent authorities. It pointed out that Native Americans, like "other U.S. citizens," are obliged to pay federal income taxes, and that while treaties might exempt them from taxation, the 1776 treaty did not do so.

On appeal, Metallic objects to the Tax Court's suggestion that he is a United States citizen, alleging that he is a member of a Canadian Micmac tribe. Even if the facts are as he says, no prejudicial error by the Tax Court has been shown. Metallic acknowledges that he resides in this country, and so the tax laws apply to him even if he is not a citizen. See, e.g., 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1(a)(1) (noting that the tax code imposes a tax on the income of "every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States").

We have considered Metallic's remaining claims, but find them meritless.

Affirmed.

[Colonel_Buck]

Are Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico United States Citizens?

Do they have to pay Federal income taxes?

[grixit]

American indians, despite all the repetitions of the word "nation", are residents of states and so have reps and senators. The others are not in states and have no votes in the house or senate, so because of "no taxation without representation", are exempted from federal income tax. But that's a policy, a whim of the lawmakers which could be changed. And of course, their local governments tax them.

[LDE]

FWIW, my understanding is that the Micmac and Passamaquoddy Indians are the same "nation." On the Canadian side of the border, they're called Micmac and on the U.S. side, Passamaquoddy. The border between Maine and New Brunswick was drawn through the middle of their lands.

The Passamaquoddy won a lawsuit to the effect that, according to treaty, they were entitled to 1/3 of the land area of Maine. In lieu of land, they took a cash settlement, which they used to set up an electronics manufacturing operation which has employed many of their people (not a casino).

In cases like this, of course, the person may not even be a recognized member of a Native American tribe.

[Colonel_Buck]

The others are not in states and have no votes in the house or senate, so because of "no taxation without representation", are exempted from federal income tax.

Does this apply to people living in Washington, DC? Is the inhabitant of 1600 Penn Ave subject to the Federal Income Tax?

[Randall]

The others are not in states and have no votes in the house or senate, so because of "no taxation without representation", are exempted from federal income tax.

Does this apply to people living in Washington, DC? Is the inhabitant of 1600 Penn Ave subject to the Federal Income Tax?

There is probably a signing statement which exempts the inhabitant of 1600 Penn from taxes.

[Nikki]

The others are not in states and have no votes in the house or senate, so because of "no taxation without representation", are exempted from federal income tax.

Does this apply to people living in Washington, DC? Is the inhabitant of 1600 Penn Ave subject to the Federal Income Tax?

Citizens and permanent residents (excluding foreign nationals of the Doplomatic Corps) of Washington, DC, pay federal income tax. The current inhabitant of the White House is merely a RESIDENT (part-time) of the District. He is a citizen of Texas -- and will be returning there in the near future.

[Colonel_Buck]

My point is that the residents of DC have no congressional representation, do they?

If not and the rule of "no taxation without representation" applies, are they subject to the federal income tax?

Also, didn't Bush Sr. claim Texas as his permanent residence and since Texas does not have a state income tax, he didn't pay any state income tax on the income he received while he was pres?

[grixit]

Right. As i said, that's just the whim of the lawmakers.

[buck09]

Puerto Rico, along with the US Virgin Islands, Guam and American Samoa are territories of the United States and have a different set of rules regarding taxation.

[nitpick]
Puerto Rico is a commonwealth, not a territory.

http://topuertorico.org/government.shtml
[/nitpick]