Wonder what "type" of Private business is just that ... Http
Printable View
Wonder what "type" of Private business is just that ... Http
That is correct. Most people live entirely in the public sphere (licenses, certificates, identification documents) and in commerce (bills, notes, checks, credits) with no idea or contemplation that there there is a sphere without the public and without government.
I found a nifty treatise supporting some of what I stated, but I'd have to go sifting.
That could be difficult being that I have over 170GB of materials.
Business, trade, and employment regulated by the police powers of the state
Source
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Qo...8%2C654&edge=0
Employment is a contract or predicated upon a contract.
Incorporation is a grant from the state to a person (franchise).
A franchise is an exercise of a sovereign prerogative in the hands of a subject.
What this all implies is regulation by government due to a public interest existing therein.
We may consider this thought presumptive.
It seems seamen are of a different class.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Qo...8%2C489&edge=0
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Qo...51%2C88&edge=0
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Qo...7%2C536&edge=0
Perhaps we are all treated as seamen when it comes to (public) employment?
This will be found to be interesting:
The common law right to earn a living
Quote:
Instead, Sutherland was "settling the case in terms that were as purely jural as an opinion could be." The New Deal's infringements on the right to earn a living "offended, deeply, the principles of lawfulness" (Arkes 1994, 82). Such arrangements offended the right of the individual to use her land, her property, or her talents as she saw fit. Far from being examples of judicial activism, cases such as Adkins, Yick Wo, or Lochner were instances in which the Court restrained legislative activism that abridged the right to pursue a lawful occupation--a right sanctified by at least seven hundred years of traditional protection.
To justify the extreme sorts of regulation that constituted the New Deal, it was necessary to overcome that tradition or to deny its existence. In 1937, in the famous "Switch in Time That Saved Nine," the Supreme Court reversed centuries of common law. Whereas courts had formerly presumed against laws infringing on common-law rights, including the right to earn a living, in United States v. Carolene Products the Court held that "regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis" (304 U.S. 144 [1937], at 152).
By this decision, the Court divided individual rights into "fundamental" rights and "economic" rights. Yet, as earlier generations had understood, the two cannot be separated. The "economic right" to operate a business had never been based only on economic justifications; rather, it was a form taken by the fundamental right of a person to provide for himself or his family. The spurious nature of the dichotomy in Carolene Products has been sufficiently demonstrated elsewhere (McCloskey 1962, 34-45; Pilon 1999; Siegan 1995), but it is remarkable how, after 1937, the history of the right to earn an honest living has been confused.
With the rise of legal positivism--originated by Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Louis Brandeis, and others--the very existence of such a right came to be directly challenged. In McAuliffe v. New Bedford, Holmes wrote, "The petitioner may have a constitutional right to talk politics but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman" (155 Mass. 216 [1892], at 220) This declaration is strictly correct because the common law guarantees only the right to seek employment, not the right to a have particular job, but Holmes's dictum, as Justice William Douglas would later write, "[had] pernicious implications" (Barsky v. Bd. of Regents of the State of New York, 347 U.S. 442 [1954], at 472). Roscoe Pound went further than Holmes, though, insisting that "there never has been at common law any such freedom of contract as [cases such as Lochner or Butcher's Union] postulate." Pound argued that the individual had no right, "by contract, [to] impose substantial restraints upon his [own] liberty" because "[f]reedom to impose these restraints, in the hands of the weak and necessitous, defeats the very end of liberty" (1909, 470-72). In other words, the poor could not be trusted with the right to decide for themselves the number of hours they wished to work.
Engaging in a trade or profession affects a public interest.Quote:
Kens argues. "Nowhere does the Constitution expressly guarantee a right to engage in a trade or profession" (1997, 117).
Legislature can just as easily classify a given type of labor as 'a trade, profession, or occupation'.
Right to work
Employment ... public interest ... regulation ... taxationQuote:
Lee v. Delmar, 66 So.2d 252, 255 (Fla. 1953): restrictions on real estate salesman void:
“The right to work, earn a living and acquire and possess property from the fruits of one's labor is an inalienable right. There may be certain trades, professions or occupations so clothed with the public interest that they may be regulated by the Legislature in the public interest. When any business, occupation or profession is so clothed with the public interest, then the Legislature must provide the yardstick for such regulation.”
and Moses stretched out his staff before him and called on the Name of God and the waters parted and they went over on dry ground. It is a matter of Faith and Trust.
For I go out in the ways and forage for my family in Husbandry to Assembly and then I return. For a man who will not take care of his family is worse than a heathen.
Isa_43:26 Put me in remembrance: let us plead together: declare thou, that thou mayest be justified.
plead = H8199
שׁפט
shaw-fat'
A primitive root; to judge, that is, pronounce sentence (for or against); by implication to vindicate or punish; by extension to govern; passively to litigate (literally or figuratively): - + avenge, X that condemn, contend, defend, execute (judgment), (be a) judge (-ment), X needs, plead, reason, rule.
----------------------
Consider the report at the End of the First Age and the Beginning of this Flesh Age - "Let US make man in OUR image". Is this not pleading together? Both the judge and defendant are in agreement. And what is TOTALLY amazing at least to me is that the Judge agreed to the same sentence -
In the image of God made he Him: Yehoshuah/Jesus is the Express Image of God : male and female made he them [mankind].
If you have seen the Son you have seen the Father. Therefore we have the appearance in this age as we did before. We remain in our image.
What Judge executes a sentence that he himself is unwilling to follow? Therefore the Judge is not above the Law. And is not immune.
Deu 32:31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
A King cannot annul his word. For example see Herod [John]. There are numerous other examples - in Daniel and his three fellows.
Other keywords involved in this whole topic: occupy, use, public interest, regulation, police powers, licensing power, commerce, permit, administrative courts
These keywords are also associated with the term license as well ......
Those three verses - Exodus 14:19-21 are each 72 Hebrew letters in length. There arises the 72-Fold Name of God.
The number 72 permeates reality and all life in the Fibonacci Sequence and pentagram. Primarily we think of quadrants and the solar year as 360 degrees so that when you divide that by 5 we get 72. The intersections of the pentagram are at 61.55% and that is the Fibonacci Sequence right there (1+2=3; 3+2=5; 5+3=8...).
Regards,
David Merrill.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf
I already have 2 stamps, thanks.
Specifically, as I mentioned using the example of gross revenue
at 100K.
Assuming a tax liability of say 20K. (These were revenue that I was unable to
get my RE on, electronic transfers, direct deposits, etc)
All other monies were lawful money redeemed (80K) via RE (restricted endorsement)
My cost of doing business was 30K. (Space rent, utilities, advertising, etc.)
On the 1040
Line 12 - (-10K)
Line 22 - (-10K)
line 37 - (-10K)
Line 38- (-10K)
Line 40 - (11.6K) Standard Deduction
Line 41 - (-21.6K)
Line 42 - (22.2K) 6 Dependents
Schedule C:
Line 1b - (20K)
Line 1d - (20K)
Line 3 - (20K)
Line 5 - (20K)
Line 7 - (20K)
Lines 8 - 27 Business operating costs - (30K)
Line 28 - (30K)
Line 29 - (-10K)
Line 31 - (-10K)
Now here's the kicker. If you claim a loss for more than 3
years the IRS will consider your business a business no longer,
it a hobby.
So this is how redeeming lawful money looks on the actual tax return of
a Sole Proprietor.
The above is of course simplified. On top of that there are 1099K and 1099MISC
which are declared by PayPal and merchant accounts if you plan to actually be
solvent and take credit cards.
So in 2012 the IRS will also get a 1099K from my merchant processors showing
that remaining 80K, which is unaddressed at all in the above return.
Then, there is the local borough sales tax quarterly, which they expect to match
your fed return.
So if anyone can contribute to help make this process better I'd greatly appreciate it.
Sorry for my absence on this thread. Tax time is always very demanding, business and family-wise.
Given the hypothetical scenario you presented there appears to be several options to reconcile the accounting records of the business to the accounting records provided to the IRS.
The first would be to show the total gross receipts on Sch C line 1b. Then show a reduction in the amount of lawful money which was demanded on Sch C line 2 which includes 'any other adjustments.' There is a note in parentheses on that line to 'see instructions' but I have not been able to locate specific instructions for that line in the instructions. This option should allow the local borough to match/reconcile figures easier than the following option.
For the second option, the specific instructions on page C-4 in regard to Line 1b it states: 'If the total amounts that were reported in box 7 of Forms 1099-MISC are more than the total you are reporting on this line, attach a statement explaining the difference.' Therefore you could attach a short statement. However, this option would be more burdensome for the local borough to match figures. However, the local borough would be showing more receipts on their records vs the Sch C so they would be less likely to make a fuss compared to the opposite situation in which their receipts would be less than the Sch C.
The IRS is supposed to follow this when dealing with a potential hobby loss. But if a demand is made for lawful money should one worry about or even consider what a subject under the Internal Revenue Code has to deal with?
Thanks for that Karl.
So Sch C line 2 you would put the total amount of Lawful Money redeemed, and
annotate it how? Write it in on the line? USC 12 ss411?
I also found this today:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw8ben.pdf
"use Form W-8BEN if they are claiming treaty benefits or are providing the form only to
claim they are a foreign person exempt from backup withholding."
This is the form you are supposed to file to PayPal if you are "foreign" and don't
provide your SSN. PP requires a foreign address verification.
From part 4:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the information on this form and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true, correct, and complete. I
further certify under penalties of perjury that:
1 I am the beneficial owner (or am authorized to sign for the beneficial owner) of all the income to which this form relates,
2 The beneficial owner is not a U.S. person,
3 The income to which this form relates is (a) not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, (b) effectively connected but is
not subject to tax under an income tax treaty, or (c) the partner’s share of a partnership’s effectively connected income, and
4 For broker transactions or barter exchanges, the beneficial owner is an exempt foreign person as defined in the instructions.
Furthermore, I authorize this form to be provided to any withholding agent that has control, receipt, or custody of the income of which I am the beneficial owner or
any withholding agent that can disburse or make payments of the income of which I am the beneficial owner.
I wonder how specifying Colorado Republic would go over?
Any thoughts on the best way to sign the return?Quote:
Given the hypothetical scenario you presented there appears to be several options to reconcile the accounting records of the business to the accounting records provided to the IRS.
The first would be to show the total gross receipts on Sch C line 1b. Then show a reduction in the amount of lawful money which was demanded on Sch C line 2 which includes 'any other adjustments.' There is a note in parentheses on that line to 'see instructions' but I have not been able to locate specific instructions for that line in the instructions. This option should allow the local borough to match/reconcile figures easier than the following option.
For the second option, the specific instructions on page C-4 in regard to Line 1b it states: 'If the total amounts that were reported in box 7 of Forms 1099-MISC are more than the total you are reporting on this line, attach a statement explaining the difference.' Therefore you could attach a short statement. However, this option would be more burdensome for the local borough to match figures. However, the local borough would be showing more receipts on their records vs the Sch C so they would be less likely to make a fuss compared to the opposite situation in which their receipts would be less than the Sch C.
The IRS is supposed to follow this when dealing with a potential hobby loss. But if a demand is made for lawful money should one worry about or even consider what a subject under the Internal Revenue Code has to deal with?
True Name for LEGAL NAME, LEGAL NAME only, etc.
Thanks.
Nobody? It's easy to say True Name but you are contracting therefore placing yourself under jurisdiction.
Hello,
long time student here and my first post. I've studied this site and all things lawful money related for 2 years and have been redeeming since last year. I opened up my own business last year and had opened the business account with my lawful money demand on the signature card to make sure all transactions from the beginning are all lawful money. I also had a notice and demand for lawful money documented notarized the bank account was open. I am highly appreciative of all the eye opening information, the more I studied the more it has sense to me.
In regards to SCHEDULE C FORM 1040, does anyone have a recommendation on how and where to note the total amount of lawful money redeemed under PART 1 Income?
Would I put the total amount redeemed in lawful money in Gross Receipts? Then create a supporting schedule for all checks and deposits with the lawful money demand on them (and including the signed signature card)?
I am just a bit confused on where to put lawful money amount for business. ANY help or clarifications is greatly appreciated. I also look forward to being more active in this forum!
Good stuff. I saw this invisible rope trick on tv https://youtu.be/2zbWMQXNkzc Two guys on either side of the road pretend to pull a rope; tug of war. Good enough to fool a motorist.
I realized it's like our money system, we pretend that Federal Reserve notes are real money. But it's an illusion. Seems the banking cartel's domination was based on secrecy and now the secret is out. You probably won't be successful as a nontaxpaying business owner until you realize ... it's not money, there is no rope!