Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCash View Post
and what? the IRS tells you "Oh yeah you're right, lawful money's outside our jurisdiction. You win, our fiat money scam has been bringing in billions of dollars but we'll let you off with a Ruling in your favor. Here ya go!" And while you're at it ask Don Corleone for a list of everyone the Mob has popped a cap in.

Not gonna happen. Has it occurred to you that perhaps you're putting too much trust in official institutions and well-respected professionals. Have you given much thought to the possibility you've been scammed, lied to, on a massive scale, by these same leading figures?

You mentioned the hypothetical of being a criminal, a very good one. Let's run with that. Let's say you're tired of being a little fish running penny ante scams, you wish to run the ultimate con, something that can deceive an entire nation. Sounds like an impossible task, doesn't it? To basically takeover a free country at the turn of the century, a country experiencing unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity precisely because freedom and property rights are secured by law. And what is the nation using as money? Yes, gold & silver and notes backed by, settled in the same metal. Your plan is to gradually move people away from real money -- to using unbacked private debt notes as money. A new ELASTIC CURRENCY controlled by YOU!

What will you need to pull it off? Cooperation? Granted it won't be easy, you'll need to go into partnership with government officials, help from a compliant media, a vast network of minions, members of secret organizations, infiltrators, websites, paid agents, grunts, etc. throughout the country. You're patient, you may not even live to see the culmination of the master plan. How long do you think it'll take?



The Third Reich told a lot of lies. Most Germans believed the State.

BTW, I redeem lawful money and haven't paid income tax since 2007.
First, I am very disappointed that David has chosen not to read my posts and respond. It reminds me of my toddlers who stick their fingers in their ears and go
"Naa Naa Naa" when you tell them something they don't want to hear. I believe David is best positions to address my concerns, but yet he just dismisses me out of hand. However, at least Johnny Cash and some others are actually giving it a go, to which I thank them.

I agree with you point on the PLR's, of course the IRS isn't going to say this position is valid, whether you believe this is due to the law not supporting the position or the fact that there is a conspiracy within the IRS not to admit taxes can be avoided, or some other reason altogether. Let's just go with your post above. The fact that you seem to acknowledge the IRS will not bless this position, as they would not issue a PLR in favor of it, shows that you really believe the IRS doesn't support this position. Think of the PLR process as running a draft tax return by the IRS to see how they would view the position. If you feel they would deny the PLR, then by default you can't believe they actually accept it on a filed return.

Regardless of how valid you believe this position to be, the courts don't seem to support it, the IRS if asked in a PLR would not support it, so even if you are correct in your views, you are still going to be subject to penalties, Liens, and possibly jail, as the courts will not agree with you.

I think you all have the wrong opinion of me. I am all for using the tax law to minimize tax liabilities within the boundaries of the law. I do this for a living. It is a legitimate position to structure a company in a way to minimize the tax consequences and I fully support taking advantage of any "loophole" in the tax code. I have no vested interest in any other site, I just seek answers to my own questions, with respect to this. Heck, if you can answer my questions with sufficient legal support, I will be singing this theories praises.

What interested me about this theory is that I really hadn't seen it until a few months ago, and I have been researching it ever since. I am a lawyer, I have to go by the law, regardless of whether you (Generic you, not directed at Johnny Cash) believe the laws are applicable. As a tax lawyer, I need to get comfort with this position, based on the IRS code, regs, and case law. I need to ensure that cases sited actually hold what David proports them to hold, or are just quotes from discussion sections taken out of context, I have to look up the code sections, and relevant regulations, and put together a legal arguement to support this position before I can take it.

David states that he believes my perceptions are wrong, but hasn't attempted to correct them. I try to distill any position in to its basic components. I provide plain english examples on how the IRS code works, and try to apply it to Davids position in order to show where I am having an issue. I think I laid it out in a way that was easy to understand. If not, I can elaborate on anything if asked.

While I do admit I have a general dislike of "Tax Protesters" (and I don't use that term in the negative) who make frivolous arguments and waste courts time, and consistently loose. I have no issues with those that study the tax law, and find creative ways within those laws to minimize tax. I was hoping David leaned more to the later rather than the former, but he just seems to be evading my questions here too, even though I am now posting on a forum he can't claim is censoring him.

If David doesn't like my "perceptions" I wish he would list them out, and state what the issue is. I will take as much time necessary to respond, but I would like my concerns addressed.

Look, for those taking this position, don't you want a succinct concise explanation of this position, with appropriate legal citations to code, regs, and cases, that you can research and confirm. Do you not want a written opinion that can be reviewed by legal professionals, judges, and legal scholars. Do you not want independent verification of this position?

If you believe Davids position is solid as a rock, what do you have to fear from providing the proper legal analysis. Referring to historic texts, old laws, articles, or documents outside the core tax law, code, regulations, and body of cases is not sufficient, in a law court. I am open minded, and willing to admit I am wrong, if provided with the support. A position like this should be easy to explain, and document. While you may believe the tax law is complicated, in all honesty, when you understand it, it is fairly straight forward. It is long, it refers to itself, and it is written by lawyers, so it can be a bit tricky for non-lawyers.

Finally, why would I be against this, other than I can't find legal support. As stated before, I would love to legally not have to pay tax. If this theory is supportable, I will be very happy. I do have a preconceived notion on the validity of this position, but only because I am a lawyer who has done his research, and have not found the support needed to accept this position. Rather than saying my opinion is correct, I wanted to reach out to the one person who seems to come up the most in searches on this topic, to help me find what I am missing. Repeatedly he has ignored my questions, even admitted to not reading them, and has generally tried to dismiss me, which to be honest, is not something I would expect from someone who has true conviction in his beliefs.

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth. Provide me with proof this is valid. Again, proof is not a redacted refund. Oh, by the way, has David ever posted his redacted returns and refund checks? I would think that would be an interesting read, although again not proof.

One final point to this post, and alluded to earlier, even if you are right (and I am not saying you are) if you believe the IRS will never admit this, and the courts will support the IRS's views on this, the penalties they can levy are real, and the jail time you can get is very real, and there are several public examples of people spending real jail time, loosing real property, and money, due to taking positions they believed were valid, but for which the IRS believed were frivolous. You can be a tax martyr if you like, but I certainly don't want to be. All I am trying to do is put the law behind these positions, and see if I can build a position supported by law, which would be undeniable in a court of law. When in Rome, do as the Romans, When in court subject to tax laws, find support in those laws.