Or is it even income in the first place?
I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.
Printable View
Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.
Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.
I am transformed daily.
The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.
What do you think?
I believe that is very important - what you think. Make your demand and presume that you have done all you can do. What you think about the SSN as contractual nexus will decide how you handle somebody using the W-4 against you.
Some people have made their demand on the W-4 successfully and filed accordingly. No refund though because the boss sent no withholdings. But I don't like when people involve their bosses like that. One nasty call from the IRS and your boss will send withholdings with no exemptions and next layoffs you will be on the tip of the pink slips.
I know of at least one situation where someone got a job without an SSN between 2002 and present. The company put 000-00-0000 in for SSN on checks and such but still withheld FICA. A US passport was the sole ID used for the job--the I-9 instructions at least then indicated a US passport suffices as a stand-alone document.
Regarding territories of the United States, it might be important to consider Social Security Districts as territories or states of the United States.This might have significance with regard to FICA.
I'm thinking more of the 'U.S. person' declaration (under duress) with respect to that being a 'Federal privilege' therefore the 'income' you receive as that 'person' is administered/taxed via the excise tax it is intended to be. Employment tax (W-4) as you know is in a different Subtitle (C) than 'income' tax (A). The W-4 (Employment tax on 'wages') allows them to ALSO withhold against any potential 'income' tax liability under (A). The key is potential liability. If ALL pay was 'income' (which is what most people think) regardless of deductions or not, then 'wages' would be written as such under Subtitle A but it is not. 'Wages' is also not listed within Sec 61 as a source of 'Gross Income'.Quote:
Mr Merrill wrote: The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.
However, by your research on this subject relative to lawful money, it would appear that 'wages' BECOMES 'income' under Subtitle A when you DO NOT restrict the payment in lawful money, which also supports the theory that if you do not redeem in lawful money then the 'U.S. person' comes into play by signing that W-9 or equivalent, therefore you have exacted 'Federal privilege' and now you must report that income as 'income', i.e. 'taxable income'.
I find that interesting. If I trade you an apple for a pear, did either of us have income? If the taxable event is our trade, how can the trade be quantified, since we didn't use FRN's?
In the same manner, if someone is receiving lawful money, he isn't receiving income, at least to the way I'm understanding it today. He is merely being paid.
I think people dealing in FRN's are in reality factoring agents for their principal, the Fed. Everything they do is meant to generate a profit to the Fed in the overall scheme of things. The money they generate from their dealings is income, and the Fed wants a percentage returned.
I do not agree that one has to accept FRNs for payment, if that was true, then our demands for lawful money would hold no legal standing. The demand for lawful money, is, in fact, a refusal of FRNs.
"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx
I always demand lawful money and when I pay in cash, I tell the other party I am using lawful money to pay. Simply putting up a NOTICE in any Corporation:
"Only Lawful money accepted for payments" will suffice. There is no law that requires one to accept FRNs as payment, there are court cases that denote US Bank notes must be accepted, but never have I seen one that rules FRNs must be accepted.
Ok, some insights on the 42.22 dollars per ounce of gold held at the treasury. Last definition of the dollar is 42.22, so assume that is the price...
http://goldcoin.org/gold/the-united-...holdings/2974/
On the first of June, 2011, testimony by Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, and Thomas C. Baxter Jr., General Counsel, Federal Reserve (formal testimony here) before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., of which Dr Paul was the Chairman, on Federal Reserve Lending Disclosures, exposed the nature of the “gold certificate account” in exchanges between Dr Paul and Mr Alvarez.
Crucially, it transpires that these certificates are not even claims to the actual gold that the Treasury confiscated. Said Mr Alvarez: “No we have no interest in the gold that is owned by the Treasury. We have simply an accounting document that is called gold certificates that represents the value at a statutory rate that we gave to the Treasury in 1934.?
In a fascinating analysis of this extraordinary statement, GoldNews.Com discusses what this means in terms of the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: “The Treasury, however, in a desire to realize the value of the gold without selling it, used their gold as collateral against gold certificate issuance to the Fed in exchange for fresh cash for the Treasury to spend. The Treasury is able to print as many gold certificates as they choose, under one restriction from the Gold Reserve Act: the amount of gold certificates outstanding shall at no time exceed the value of gold held by the Treasury, priced at the statutory rate. This meant any increase in the value of the Treasury’s gold could be matched by printing gold certificates and those certificates could be used to acquire new Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) from the Fed.”
This is Quantitative Easing with a vengeance! In order to have more money to spend, the Fed is asked to print more notes, in return for which, and in order, presumably, not to disturb the “statutory” price recorded on the Fed’s accounts, the Treasury then prints more gold certificates.
An upshot of this is that the dollar is worth a good deal less than is assumed. And a corollary of this is that the manner in which the Treasury acquired the gold and its subsequent valuation as “gold certificates” would explain why, as noted above, the U.S. insisted on maintaining the dollar price at $35 for so long: it was an accountancy exercise and no more, and continues as such to this day.
http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/feder...o-gold-at-all/
This article clears it up...
Also, http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm
There is some good stuff about lawful money in the above webpage, most interesting though is #5. A federal reserve bank, here I assume any member, can reduce it's liability of outstanding notes (which why would they ever) by turning in their FRNs, gold certificates, sdrs, or LAWFUL MONEY. The agent receives the deposit and lowers their liability. These gold certificates seem to float inter Federal Reserve bank as currency. Good as gold right...the problem is, if gold goes down.
This one is for you David,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5117
(B)
I found it!
(b) The Secretary shall issue gold certificates against gold transferred under subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary may issue gold certificates against other gold held in the Treasury. The Secretary may prescribe the form and denominations of the certificates. The amount of outstanding certificates may be not more than the value (for the purpose of issuing those certificates, of 42 and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) of the gold held against gold certificates. The Secretary shall hold gold in the Treasury equal to the required dollar amount as security for gold certificates issued after January 29, 1934.
Sorry for the long post, but, disseminate as you wish.
Thanks for the insightful links, research and conclusions.
The way I understand it is that the price was stabilized until the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements around 1976. That was when gold was transferred to the IMF Trust Fund. Ergo we still find international gold earmarked at that $42.22/troy ounce.
The quota system
Each member of the IMF is assigned a quota, based broadly on its relative size in the world economy, which determines its maximum contribution to the IMF’s financial resources. Upon joining the IMF, a country normally pays up to one-quarter of its quota in the form of widely accepted foreign currencies (such as the U.S. dollar, euro, yen, or pound sterling) or Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). The remaining three-quarters are paid in the country’s own currency.
Quotas are reviewed at least every five years. Ad hoc quota increases of 1.8 percent were agreed in 2006 as the first step in a two-year program of quota and voice reforms. Further ad hoc quota increases were approved by the Board of Governors in April 2008, resulting in an overall increase of 11.5 percent. The 2008 reform came into effect in March 2011 following ratification of the amendment to the IMF’s Articles by 117 member countries, representing 85 percent of the IMF’s voting power.
The Fourteenth General Review of Quotas was completed two years ahead of the original schedule in December 2010, with a decision to double the IMF’s quota resources to SDR 476.8 billion. Members have committed to using best efforts to making quotas under the Fourteenth Review effective in October 2012.
Earlier reviews concluded in January 2003 and January 2008 resulted in no change in quotas.
Gold holdings: http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/finfac.htm
The recent decision by the members of the IMF to establish a trust fund for the benefit of the poorest countries financed by the sale of IMF gold was the second. http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/papers/WP_67.pdf
Role of gold. The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement in April 1978 fundamentally changed the role of gold in the international monetary system by eliminating the use of gold as the common denominator of the post-World War II exchange rate system and as the basis of the value of the Special Drawing Right (SDR). It also abolished the official price of gold and ended the obligatory use of gold in transactions between the IMF and its member countries. It furthermore required that the IMF, when dealing in gold, avoid managing its price or establishing a fixed price. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/gold.htm
The W-9 section on the bank signature card is a permission granting the bank to share your account information with the IRS. In my experience it requires a separate initialing or signature on the form. I merely refused to sign it. The bank clerk then said that the account would not be able to received any interest on deposits. EXACTLY! That's what I asked for in the first place. "Do you offer any non-interest bearing checking accounts?"
They wanted me to sign the e-pad but I insisted on placing wet ink on paper. They said that after I sign the e-pad that they could print me a copy. I said I would be happy to have a copy of my wet ink signature on paper. ;-) They gave in.
Here here!
Great job EZ!
In my experience, the W9 was included as part of the signature card.
[QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]
This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.
[QUOTE]
Actually David, 31 USC §371 has NOT been repealed. It has been moved, albeit circuitously. It was restated in the Revised Statute 3563 and then renumbered as 31 USC 5101.
[QUOTE=Goldi;10078][QUOTE=David Merrill;9600]
This plays integral role in your point AJ as 31 USC §371 has been repealed in order to peg US notes to the FRNs in value.
Umm.. this actually might be a big deal.Quote:
Actually David, 31 USC §371 has NOT been repealed. It has been moved, albeit circuitously. It was restated in the Revised Statute 3563 and then renumbered as 31 USC 5101.
The only change I see between it and 371 is...
" and all accounts in the public offices and all the proceedings in the courts shall be kept and held in conformity to this regulation"
That is the part we need to find...
[QUOTE=mikecz;10084][QUOTE=Goldi;10078]Here's how I see it. When you look up 31 USC 5101, it shows the authority as R.S. 3563. Revised statutes are to be nothing more than a restatement of the statute. How do I know this? I have a copy of Title 31 from 1940 [31 USC 371] showing the exact language of 1 stat 250-251, and it's source of authority in that version was 1 stat 250 and R.S. 3563. This was a restatement of section 20 of the 1792 coinage act @ 1 stat 250-251. So what we have here is a distinct modification of language of the original source in the current code, by the use of simply dropping a bunch of words from it. And you know what? They can drop all the words they want, but if you cite the origin of the code, you got them by the nuts. So don't cite the code, cite the source/authority for the code.
I found an interesting case on a subscription based website and when I went to PACER to locate it in the 11th circuit, it cannot be found.
The following is a summary and it cannot be accessed without additional charges:
Appellant's Reply Brief
Gary A. GOLDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Respondent-Appellees.United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.April 07, 1999No. 98-09451.1999 WL 33646074
1. Whether Goldman has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes for lawful money? 2. Whether Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta is Government Agency like CIA? Appellee Federal Reserve Bank...
...tangible interest in redeeming his personal Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, from the Bank. All this Court must do is decide...
...has a right to redeem his Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, and that it is the private corporation Federal Reserve Bank...
...Appellant's right to redeem his particular Federal Reserve notes, on demand, for lawful money, is a claim specific, and standing to adjudicate this controversy...
...right to demand redemption of this Federal Reserve notes, on demand for lawful money, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has a duty...
Hehe David, I also see a couple of libel of review actions have been filed associated with the demand for lawful money. Michael-Guy MALLONEE out of Wash, Jeffrey DAVID out of North Carolina and Victor E. NISKA out of Minnesota. Wanna update us on the outcomes of those 3 cases?
Suitors who understand the Libel of Review know the outcome is an evidence repository in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States government.
Study the template. Especially pay attention to the Instructions at the end, and the sample clerk instruction in the middle. That is what makes the LoR worthwhile. All the LoRs get dismissed.
Scott County District Judge Caroline Lennon said through a court official that she did. Myser believes he has proof that she didn’t, and took his evidence to the attorney general, the governor, the Legislature, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which accepted the case even though lower courts have already ruled in Lennon’s favor.
“This is a massive coverup. The law is very clear,” said Myser, 55, a Mendota Heights resident and former Silicon Valley executive who now volunteers his time in conflict resolution. “Every case that she’s touched is tainted.”
State law requires judges to take an oath before entering the duties of the office and file that oath with the secretary of state. If judges refuse or neglect to take an oath, the office is vacated. Lennon was appointed to the bench by Gov. Tim Pawlenty in 2008, then elected in 2010.
“I went to the secretary of state to see if she had an oath of office to see if she was following that rule,” said Myser. The office sent him letter dated Jan. 2, 2013, that said: “Oath for Caroline Lennon not found.”
http://www.startribune.com/local/248...&c=y#continue=
“The courts don’t want this exposed. It’s that serious,” said MacDonald. “The damages could be enormous.”
Oath of Office for judges
Hey Chex, thanks for this post. You know this goes directly to IMPLIED trust. Now consider carefully where you are in terms of VENUE when you endorse the Federal Reserve. Does the Judge require and Oath? Answer = no. He sits in bank to collect for his Masters.
You cannot have it both ways - the Debtor is SLAVE to the Lender.
Now if the judge sits in banc, then, he is biased as a taxpayer. As such, if you don't utter a peep, then it is IMPLIED that you WANT judgment. So what is it? You are the master of your domain so what is it? Will you stake your claim, or consent to be ruled?
THE SYSTEM IS VOLUNTARY. AND if you endorse the Federal Reserve there is NOTHING in that Constitution that can help you. Consider and you will see!
Google search: Federal Reserve cities and districts - it is an eye opener.
Have you been RE--VENUE --ED?
Shalom,
MJ
Canadian Law Dictionary 5th
Attachment 1585
The depositor is the customer who is buying credits in exchange for money.