Basis in Law

[NYGMan-Tax]

David, I have read everything you have posted on this topic and am still having trouble understanding part 2 of your position. I have tried to address this on other forums, but you seem to not answer my question.

You have two prongs to your position:
1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

I will ignore point 1, while I do not agree with your view, part 2 is more problematic.

Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.

Assuming you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money, at a 1-1 exchange rate, the value of lawful money can be determined, and therefore should still be taxable. Assuming lawful money doesn't exist in tangible form, any cash, checks, of transfers I get are paid in FRN's when paid, and subsequently converted. This brief moment in time is enough time to to be taxable. Even if in your hold them for even 1 millisecond, it is enough to be taxable, prior to the conversion

All I am looking for is some case law, IRS Code sections, IRS regulations, or even Private letter ruling that you have gotten from the IRS, that supports your position on the nontaxability of lawful money, which clearly has value, and when paid to you, needs converting.

You should be able to lay out the authority very simply, in order to support your position. I do;t need historical documents, or definitions, just the law.
I hope posting here will provide you with a chance to post your support free of "censorship".

Please just answer my question directly, specifically, and only referance valid laws and cases.

[David Merrill]

David, I have read everything you have posted on this topic and am still having trouble understanding part 2 of your position. I have tried to address this on other forums, but you seem to not answer my question.

You have two prongs to your position:
1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

I will ignore point 1, while I do not agree with your view, part 2 is more problematic.

Under the code, anything of value regardless of form, is taxable. If I get paid Canadian Dollars, Mexican Pesos, Euro, British Pounds, FRN's I am viewed as getting something of value, which is taxable to me. If someone gives me a car, a painting, or anything else of value, I am taxed on that value. What I don't understand, and can not find, having gone through the regulations, IRS Code, and case law, is what is the authority to exclude redeemed lawful money.

Assuming you are redeeming FRN's for lawful money, at a 1-1 exchange rate, the value of lawful money can be determined, and therefore should still be taxable. Assuming lawful money doesn't exist in tangible form, any cash, checks, of transfers I get are paid in FRN's when paid, and subsequently converted. This brief moment in time is enough time to to be taxable. Even if in your hold them for even 1 millisecond, it is enough to be taxable, prior to the conversion

All I am looking for is some case law, IRS Code sections, IRS regulations, or even Private letter ruling that you have gotten from the IRS, that supports your position on the nontaxability of lawful money, which clearly has value, and when paid to you, needs converting.

You should be able to lay out the authority very simply, in order to support your position. I do;t need historical documents, or definitions, just the law.
I hope posting here will provide you with a chance to post your support free of "censorship".

Please just answer my question directly, specifically, and only referance valid laws and cases.

I am afraid your beginning this journey has biased your perspective and I will only come across as evasive. That is to say you have been posting on Quatloos and I have not really been spending any time trying to convince anybody there. Wserra has a slur campaign on American remedy going and I will be a bit brutal with a reality check, he has revealed that there are many intelligent people who have filed Libels of Review and more importantly, he will not tell you how many PACER hits his search inquiries reveal because it is likely he knows of maybe a thousand identical cases. Most importantly he has no reason to explain how all these victims seem quite happy with dismissed cases and remain cordial and respectful of me.

So I am informing you and notifying you plainly that there is something indeed that you are missing. There is a big whoosh as something goes over your head and you are trying to bring that misunderstanding to light by bringing a big Wserra presumption here:

You have two prongs to your position:

1) You can redeem FRN's for Lawful money
2) Lawful money is not taxable.

The law says that Federal Reserve notes may be redeemed in lawful money by demand. Actually it uses a pronoun "They" when Congress is otherwise very specific so I believe that "People" works as well in that pronoun. I do not say that FRN's can be redeemed for lawful money. The law, read in plain English indicates that there is a difference between FRN's and lawful money because one is redeemed in the other.

What I say is that people can make their demand like the law says. There is no harm in making a simple demand. You can buy a stamp for a few bucks and most banks will accept your "restricted endorsement" with no problem. Many times you need not even sign your demand - the stamp works for your signature.



I should address that putting a stamp on a bill does nothing at all except teach people, get them curious and I imagine that hundreds of people have looked up the law just due to the stamp circulating on money. Once you have the cash in hand you have lawful money.

Your second premise is also faulty. Lawful money is not taxable? Reserve currency is taxable. US notes are not a reserve currency. When you demand lawful money you can presume that you are receiving US notes in the form of FRN's. The currency you receive is not a reserve currency and therefore your income is outside the scope of the Federal Reserve System. Title 26 no longer applies to you.

That is basically how it works but you being from Quatloos I will add that Wserra and his crew there do not decide whether or not to send Refund Checks from the Treasury - IRS agents at the instructions of government attorneys do. That is where the rubber meets the road and you can skip over to some interesting demonstrations by clicking here.

I have clobbered the slur campaign by the bottom of the second page there. But as you read onward you will realize that all the redicule and sucking up to Wserra is about the presumption that people doing this are demanding metal - which is unrealistic.

I have been watching you with a little more interest than the others because you have yet to adopt an infantile insulting posture. So I am going to presume for now that you are being genuine and when you persist on putting words in my mouth, like here, you will be hearing about that and I will be ignoring the rhetoric around your presumptions as well, like here.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[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.

[David Merrill]

Maybe you would better understand it as the right to be heard. - The way I focus on making your demand. That is why we are wise to keep a separate evidence repository under our control with the competent clerk of court at the USDC.

Like I explained over on Quatloos there is no case law or supporting opinions because the judges and IRS attorneys are smart enough not to break the law.

Where I want to go though is into the power of a suitor's word.

Isa 58:14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

For the IRS to make a separate assessment is to not just depend on hearsay - but to prefer it. Especially after there are numerous non-endorsements on the paychecks, or a copy of the non-endorsement Signature Page (electronic deposit) in the IRS file and in the USDC evidence repository. The suitor expresses his word by making the demand.

And like I keep explaining to the Quatlosers we are all quite grateful that they are not the ones cutting the Refund Checks. The IRS attorneys are doing that. They do not write letters of explanation - they just forgive.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

P.S. Please do not get me wrong - I am grateful you came to inquire:

From NYGman's profile:

A real live tax lawyer, who actually knows the tax law, and seeks the truth, but despises lies

You have me thinking along new lines, assuming your inquiries are genuine. [Which I doubt because you imposed a false premise of my posture.]

I like the idea that Congress meant "They" to be "People" - listen carefully:





Taken literally this supports my substitution of People into the pronoun "They". The people are redeemed from the mortgage that saved the Federal Reserve from the twenty-year charter expiring in 1933.

I expect that you will return to Quatloos in the Wserra fashion and report that you have "won" by me not producing any "proof", even when unencumbered by the heavy censoring. I expect that will work out as well as Wserra's slur campaign is going so far.