True, however 'that' "nonresident alien" is still considered to be a "taxpayer" - "any person subject to any internal revenue tax" - even though that person may have no "effectively connected income". I'm not of the exact implications of that status, but anything that would categorize me as a "person subject to any internal revenue tax" is something I would want to avoid.
Me neither, and they won't tell or give up a form. That reg says the form is one they "may specify". "May" = not mandatory, so it looks like they have opted not to create such a form. How convenient for them?
That's one way of doing it - let me offer another...
When you initiate a "rebuttal" you will have to make statements, and in making those statements the burden of proof is entirely on you to substantiate them. Your rebuttal also presumes their authority in relation to you. However, they are the ones who are alleging you have some legal duty and obligation to perform some act ("file a return", "pay $500 zillion", etc.), so the burden ought to be 100% of them to substantiate their allegation. The best tool I have discovered to that end is utilizing the right of inquiry -- ask questions, don't make statements, in response to legal notices.
But it already has helped -- at least from what I have observed -- because now I have standing for my claim of status, and they can't rely on the excuse that they "didn't know" in the event they damage me. I also have admissible evidence of my status.
Agreed. However, I only ask questions in relationship to any presumptions they may have about me... "Who do you think I am?" "What's the evidence for your presumption?" "In what capacity do you believe I am acting?" "Where do you believe I am acting?", etc. This places the burden of proof 100% on them, as it should be.
Yes! Exactly.