"nonresidents not citizens" - what does it mean?

certain US citizens are excluded (for example, Puerto Rico residents)

Right, a resident of a U.S. territory is kind of a whole nother subject.

No. The citation that atxsaltax cited involveing the Philippines, was actually a quote of a particular law by the court. Here's the link to that law: https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index ... Itemid=741
This act is talking about people that are nonresidents of the United States but citizens of the United States, being exempt from Philippines income tax. So it's a bit less on point.

This act is a Philippine law, and we are talking about US tax law, no?

The other tax-related case cited, 221 F.Supp. 291, addresses your question more directly.

The plaintiff's remaining contention ... a non-resident citizen ... is without merit in view of the express statutory language.

The plaintiff claimed he was a "non-resident citizen", and the court said "is without merit".

puravidatpt wrote:
all US citizens, no matter where they live, follow the same rules as residents.

This isn’t true if you read the statutes, certain US citizens are excluded (for example, Puerto Rico residents)

Correct. Puerto Rico has separate rules in the tax law. "Certain residents of possessions considered nonresidents not citizens of the United States" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/20.2209-1). Please note, it is "nonresidents not citizens", not "nonresident citizen". So the statement should be modified as: all US citizens "proper", no matter where they live, follow the same rules. Thanks for the correction.

This act is a Philippine law, and we are talking about US tax law, no?

Right. So that case isn't quite as relevant. It does illustrate the point, though.

The other tax-related case cited, 221 F.Supp. 291, addresses your question more directly.

The plaintiff's remaining contention ... a non-resident citizen ... is without merit in view of the express statutory language.

The plaintiff claimed he was a "non-resident citizen", and the court said "is without merit".

Read the case, particularly the last 2 main paragraphs. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1/1527288/ You got rid of the important stuff. The plaintiff tried to claim that the rule for nonresident aliens should apply to him. But the court said that he was a nonresident citizen and not a nonresident alien, and therefore he had to use the rule that applied to nonresident citizens instead. The plaintiff's claim that he could use the nonresident alien rule is what the court said was without merit.

Getting pretty tiresome.

OP position - citizen can't be a nonresident because tax rules for both are essentially the same, so the category does not need to exist for income tax purposes.

Everyone else's position - citizen can be a nonresident even though tax rules for both are essentially the same, and even though the category does not need to exist for income tax purposes.

Facts - there are citizen nonresidents.

Kind of reminds me of a member who used to post similar positions (on different subjects). Haven't heard from that member lately.

Getting pretty tiresome.

OP position - citizen can't be a nonresident because tax rules for both are essentially the same, so the category does not need to exist for income tax purposes.

Everyone else's position - citizen can be a nonresident even though tax rules for both are essentially the same, and even though the category does not need to exist for income tax purposes.

Facts - there are citizen nonresidents.

Nilodop, thanks for the summary.

Within its dictionary meaning of nonresident ("someone who does not live in a particular place"), I do agree that citizen can be a nonresident, and there are citizen nonresidents. I personally have many clients who are citizen nonresidents.

However, we cannot apply the dictionary meaning in tax law. People who have lived in the United States for many years can be nonresidents because they are exempt individuals, and people who have not lived in the United States for many years are residents because they are permanent residents of the United States.

Before we can answer the question whether a citizen can be a nonresident in legal sense, we need to find how a nonresident is defined. The tax law only defines nonresidents as nonresidents alien who follow one set of rules, and the rest are "citizens or residents" who follow another. Of course, a citizen cannot be a nonresident (alien).

A state usually defines a nonresident when a resident who moves out of the state and has no ties with the state as a nonresident, and they do not need to report income as a nonresident to the state, but there is no similar definition for United States nonresident when a citizen moves out of the country, and there is no need for such a definition because a citizen with exception for those who live in US possessions follow essentially the same rules regardless where they live and how long they have lived there.

Since there is no "citizen nonresident" defined, "citizen nonresident" as a category does not exist in tax law.

Some people found a court case (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1/1527288/) in which the plaintiff claimed himself as a "nonresident citizen" as an evidence for the existence of "nonresident citizen" in tax law, but the term is used in its ordinary sense, it does not define the term nor create a category. As a matter of fact, this case is not about his residency, it does not make a difference whether he was a nonresident or not.

To summarize, there are citizen nonresidents in real life within the dictionary meaning, but they do not exist in tax law as the term is not defined and does not need to be defined. If you think otherwise, please post where "citizen nonresident" is defined in tax law, and what the different rules that this category of people follow, and I will stand corrected.

I went to the dictionary, seeing if there was a definition for “the dog,” but there wasn’t, so “the dog” sitting on my floor doesn’t exist. That’s great, since I can now save a bunch of money on “the dog’s” food.

That's a sure fire way to manifest the dog into not existing.

That's a sure fire way to manifest the dog into not existing.

LOL. But remember, The Dog already didn’t exist. A Dog did not exist either. Dog existed, though, so maybe I still need to feed him.

Lawyer Dogs don’t exist either:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... -a-lawyer/

does not need to be defined

At least you got one thing right.

I went to the dictionary, seeing if there was a definition for “the dog,” but there wasn’t, so “the dog” sitting on my floor doesn’t exist. That’s great, since I can now save a bunch of money on “the dog’s” food.

I am glad that you guys managed to find some fun in this tiresome discussion. If "nonresident citizen" existed in tax law, then you have to determine if a citizen is a resident or nonresident by perhaps by checking the number of days she lived in and out in the county in prior years and current year, and whether she has ties with United States, and inevitably you will encounter the situation that she is a resident and nonresident in the same year, and she has to file dual-status return and you need to divide income between the resident and the nonresident period, and she has traded stocks all year long. More than likely some states (think California) will not conform with the federal law, so it is possible while a citizen is not a United States resident, she is still considered as a California resident, so you have to deal with the income differently between federal and state.

In light of all these complexities, that "nonresident citizen" does not exist in tax law may be a blessing, and I hope you do not get too mad about it.