Basis in Law

[David Merrill]

Is there a reason you have registered three times from three different email addresses?


P.S. I truly did not read NYGman's post past the presumptions. So if any member is curious about some of the post please bring that up. I enjoy speaking about this always.

What I do not enjoy is the attorney tactic of deciding the premise before asking the questions. If you set up a faulty foundation for somebody else to debate from, that is stacking the cards in my opinion.

Additionally NYGman has set up two additional accounts with StSC. The two unused ones have been permanently banished. I am curious though - were the other two to colleagues of yours? More likely you were having confusion about our two-post rule. That is to avoid non-human members registering.

[NYGMan-Tax]

Is there a reason you have registered three times from three different email addresses?


P.S. I truly did not read NYGman's post past the presumptions. So if any member is curious about some of the post please bring that up. I enjoy speaking about this always.

What I do not enjoy is the attorney tactic of deciding the premise before asking the questions. If you set up a faulty foundation for somebody else to debate from, that is stacking the cards in my opinion.

Additionally NYGman has set up two additional accounts with StSC. The two unused ones have been permanently banished. I am curious though - were the other two to colleagues of yours? More likely you were having confusion about our two-post rule. That is to avoid non-human members registering.

To be honest, based on the postings on this site, I really didn't want my true email address in your logs. I used a disposable address, and typed it wrong twice, so I couldn't verify the account. I just think at some point in the future due to certain positions you take with respect to taxation, that should the IRS decide to, they may criminally prosecute, and email addresses may be seized. I just don;t want to have my true email on any IRS list. While I respect the IRS ant the tax law and regulations, I have been audited before, and don't want to do that again. I do believe in minimizing tax burdens legally, and paying as little tax as the law will allow, but always in a way supported by law. I will add, if there were a valid legal way to avoid taxation on income, I would jump right on it. Between federal, state, city, property, FICA, Medicade, Sales Tax, other taxes, I am subject to over 60% tax on income. This theory is not the magic bullet David makes it out to be. Everything posted while sounds good, just doesn't work under the law.

[JohnnyCash]

It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo.

[NYGMan-Tax]

It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo.

That's not proof. The fact that the IRS has not picked up on this yet, doesn't mean the position has been accepted. The IRS has a system of examining returns post refund. Depending on the level of income and the way it is presented, your chance of audit may be low. You may never get audited, then again, when you do, you will have an issue. I am not saying you can't take your position, but by taking it you are needlessly raising your audit risk. If you get audited, this position is not supported by the law. Think about it, the IRS does not have the resources to look at every return, lower gross income earners are less likely to be audited. Those who deal in cash, and don't seriously live outside there means, also can sneak by too. Heck, you can file a return with all zeros and get a refund, and the IRS may never catch you. Look at the CtC folks. I am sure some have got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Think of it like this, do you speed, when driving? If you say, you add 10% because everyone else does, and the cops don't mind, it doesn't make going 10% over the limit legal. If the cops choose to, they can write a ticket for it, but they usually ignore it, and look for people in excess. This is what is probably your situation. You just don't rise to the level of audit, and have yet to be randomly selected. It does not mean you are right, under the law

[NYGMan-Tax]

That's not proof. The fact that the IRS has not picked up on this yet, doesn't mean the position has been accepted. The IRS has a system of examining returns post refund. Depending on the level of income and the way it is presented, your chance of audit may be low. You may never get audited, then again, when you do, you will have an issue. I am not saying you can't take your position, but by taking it you are needlessly raising your audit risk. If you get audited, this position is not supported by the law. Think about it, the IRS does not have the resources to look at every return, lower gross income earners are less likely to be audited. Those who deal in cash, and don't seriously live outside there means, also can sneak by too. Heck, you can file a return with all zeros and get a refund, and the IRS may never catch you. Look at the CtC folks. I am sure some have got away with it, but that doesn't make it right.

Think of it like this, do you speed, when driving? If you say, you add 10% because everyone else does, and the cops don't mind, it doesn't make going 10% over the limit legal. If the cops choose to, they can write a ticket for it, but they usually ignore it, and look for people in excess. This is what is probably your situation. You just don't rise to the level of audit, and have yet to be randomly selected. It does not mean you are right, under the law


I should also add, if you believe it is right, why not ask the IRS for a PLR confirming that your position is valid? [note: Doing do will draw attention to your prior year filings, but if everything is legit, this shouldn't be an issue]

[David Merrill]

It does work. My experience redeeming thousands of dollars annually in lawful money and paying zero taxes these past 5 years corroborates the truth of what David speaks of. And that's probably why my voice (as Harvester) is now disapproved over at Quatloo.

Moving on to the second sentence:

What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable.

That may be true according to the Sixteenth Amendment - it is just not within the scope of the Federal Reserve Act. Simply think about the Fed Act and the remedy, to be conducting transactions outside the Act:



I like this! You change my style to explain in a more technical form. The bottom document in this file about Section 411 of Title 12 is titled to be about paragraph 203(a) but in processing I discovered paragraph 202 is so much more interesting! This is where by law anybody who endorses private credit may be considered a State Bank!

This introduces somewhat of a revelation to me that since the Average Joe signing endorsement is a state bank he is getting consideration - (not a naked contract) - should Joe be lending out to all his friends and fractionally on the approved Fed rates he finds himself at the center of a run on Poker Night. Joe can simply call up the FDIC and they will send an armored car - well, a cheap suit in sunglasses with a briefcase anyway - to save his reputation as a banker.

The only problem with your posting here is that I cannot seem to get though your first two sentences without running out of time to chat. And my mind wanders into new discoveries like a trimmer 843 Form-based Libel of Review. The LoR is my intellectual property and with my imagination (Planet Merrill) I just find it too amusing that since my intellectual properties have value, that in your New York City G-Man Tax Attorney world you would have it that the IRS can start taxing me? For my thoughts? For sharing my thoughts and others benefitting by getting full refunds of their withholdings? That would be quite contrary for the IRS to give these people Refunds and then Tax me for showing them how! My thoughts have value. So do yours but on Planet Merrill you are a teaching tool.

So I will leave the rest of your posts for the good members and readers here to parse out for the value you bring - which is no small value. It is indeed a privilege to have you here.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Section 203(a) is an interesting segway into the Secretary being US Governor for the IMF as found in the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements (p. 8).


P.P.S.