Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 117

Thread: Basis in Law

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12
    I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party. What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable. the fact that you don't consider it valid currency is irrelevant. I get paid in USD, EURO, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars, to name a few. I have also been paid in property for my services. Under all scenarios, the money I was paid, regardless of denomination and form is taxable.

    I am just getting a bit frustrated with the lack of authority for this position. I can't find an IRS code section, regulation, or case to support this position. I know you all believe this opinion, and in David, but unless supported by the tax laws, it just doesn't work. David could apply for a PLR present his position to the IRS, and have them rule on it. At least with that the IRS would provide their logic and analysis. The only issue is the IRS will not opine if they believe the argument is not frivolous, and based on some of the case law I have read, that may actually be the case.

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by David Merrill View Post
    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.

  3. #13
    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.

  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    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

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    12
    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]

  6. #16
    I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party.
    It will take some time to go through your flurry of posts but again, I address the juxtaposition of premise with your initial sentence.

    There are 'boxes' in which we are conditioned to think and Treefarmer has already presented an excellent item for another reality check:

    I have never heard of the IRS collecting a value tax.
    So just to get our heads out of a certain box that you propose to draw consider the sales tax. Sales tax is a burden on the shopkeeper, not the buyer. It would be a buyer's tax if it was intended for the purchaser. It is such an ingrained tradition though, that people are accustomed to paying the sales tax for the shop owner. The shopkeeper should subscribe to the letter of the law and just put the sales tax into the purchase price, in an OCD world, don't you think?

    Importing the principle of your 843 Form rebuttal I read yesterday you do not seem capable of seeing over the edge of the teacup and think that is the scope of the horizon here. All you need to do is figure that the Income Tax is a fee on the use of the Fed's private credit. Then you might understand much better how redeeming lawful money by demand (by making your demand) removes the suitor into the still extant currency realm of US notes and coins.


    Regards,

    David Merrill.


    P.S. Your myopia is supported by the facts:

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    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.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
    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.

    Last edited by David Merrill; 10-17-12 at 01:59 PM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by NYGMan-Tax View Post
    Under the code....
    Prove I am "under the code":

  9. #19
    NYGman says;

    That is not proof.


    Yet we have been redeeming lawful money in various forms for seven years now.

    BTW: I just got my State refund check (over $3,000) , based on the 1040 Line 21 "Lawful Money Demand Reduction". The Federal refund was already successfully applied to back taxes. The other State tax return was also accepted without objection to this reduction. So, "...by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses, a matter is confirmed"! Hooray!
    That snippet is from my current emails. You will get no proof over the Internet. My favorite examples show contemplation like that though - that the IRS considered it carefully and then cut the check, even to apply it to back taxes. Or closer to home (yours) would be the state tax authority pondering over a tax refund carefully enough to add the School Tax Credit on:





    You have a good point. The recipient in New York is a banker for the huge international bank and is a licensed tax preparer. He was at a get together and overheard his co-worker's (the host's) sister, an IRS attorney speaking a bit too candidly, There is a group of people in Colorado who don't pay Income Tax; they are doing it correctly. He figured she meant me but she clammed up to any further conversation about it. She would however speak a little about his returns and at one point, the next year she remarked that she could no longer access his files.

    This sort of thing goes on around me all the time. It is not proof to you because like you see, I bounced it back and forth with him until he was comfortable that nobody would figure it was him. But even if you do, what are you going to do? Are you going to call up the NY Tax Authority and gripe about somebody else getting a refund? You would be griping to the people who write the refund check! You would call them up and tell them they made a big mistake?

    So we discussed it carefully and found these two docs as sanitized are convincing that they go together and they show contemplation. As you read it, it is not proof - agreed. But you have to admit it is rather convincing.



    Regards,

    David Merrill.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Treefarmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    in the woods known to some as Tanasi
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by NYGMan-Tax View Post
    I am not getting it, it still doesn't work. there is inherent value in what you are getting from a second party. What ever the form of the value received, it is taxable. the fact that you don't consider it valid currency is irrelevant. I get paid in USD, EURO, British Pounds, Canadian Dollars, to name a few. I have also been paid in property for my services. Under all scenarios, the money I was paid, regardless of denomination and form is taxable.

    I am just getting a bit frustrated with the lack of authority for this position. I can't find an IRS code section, regulation, or case to support this position. I know you all believe this opinion, and in David, but unless supported by the tax laws, it just doesn't work. David could apply for a PLR present his position to the IRS, and have them rule on it. At least with that the IRS would provide their logic and analysis. The only issue is the IRS will not opine if they believe the argument is not frivolous, and based on some of the case law I have read, that may actually be the case.
    NYGMan-Tax, it is indeed a pleasure to have you here.
    You bring a new perspective to this discussion forum.
    Thank you for joining us.

    Earlier today I dug out my searchable copy of the 1986 IRC and searched for the term "value".
    "Value" occurs there 3,416,179 times, usually in connection with "interest" or "estate".
    Then I searched for "value tax", which occurs not at all, and neither does "taxable value", "tax value" or "inherent value".
    Then I searched for "tax on value", which occurs once:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
    CHAPTER 62 - TIME AND PLACE FOR PAYING TAX
    Subchapter B - Extensions of Time for Payment

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 6163. Extension of time for payment of estate tax on value of
    reversionary or remainder interest in property

    -STATUTE-
    (a) Extension permitted
    If the value of a reversionary or remainder interest in property
    is included under chapter 11 in the value of the gross estate, the
    payment of the part of the tax under chapter 11 attributable to
    such interest may, at the election of the executor, be postponed
    until 6 months after the termination of the precedent interest or
    interests in the property, under such regulations as the Secretary
    may prescribe.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I find it interesting that you stated that anything of value being received is taxable by the IRS.
    Perhaps value is not taxable under the IRC, but pursuant to public policy?
    Would you please elaborate on your statements about value being taxable?
    Thank you.

    As to your curious statement about someone not considering "value received" as "valid currency", this really caught my eye.
    You did not appear to be addressing anyone in particular with your statement, so I assume that you were directing your comment at the collective forum members.
    A quick forum search revealed that we have never discussed the validity of any currency on this forum, and the word combination of "valid currency" exists exactly once on this forum in your own post.

    So while you are at it, would you please also explain how "received value" is "valid currency"?
    Thank you, your input here is appreciated.
    Last edited by Treefarmer; 10-19-12 at 02:30 AM.
    Treefarmer

    There is power in the blood of Jesus

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •