Basis in Law

[NYGMan-Tax]

so much to respond to, this is great, I am really enjoying this discussion. Lets start off with something basic to my question, value.

I am trying to simplify multiple code sections and regulations to make it easier to understand. I could quote a series of code sections, but I am trying to explain it is the most basic way. David provides a general overview of his theory without referring to code sections, regulations and case law, so I figured it was the easiest way to do it. I am a tax lawyer by trade, and know the code and regs quite well. However, I prefer to explain in plain English, in a way I hope all can understand. Sure you can search for value, but you won't find it used in the context I am using it, but it is correct. Think about this, you perform a service for someone. The service you just performed has a value to it, and you expect to be compensated for that value. You assign an amount to the worth of that work, typically this is your salary, or hourly wage. Under the code, the value that is assigned to that work is what is subject to taxation. It would be taxable, unless you are donating time to charity, and do not expect to be paid. You are in effect donating the value of your time. [As an aside, in essence you can think of charity work as earning a dollar value for services rendered, but donating the value of your services, resulting in no income recognition as it is a wash - Income = $100 charitable deduction = -100 : income less charitable deduction = 0 - you can not deduct the cost of your labor against your income to offset, that is not permitted deduction]

Now let's get back to value. I do a job. Let's say I expect to get paid $5,000. At the completion of the job, I have several options:
1) They offer $5,000 in FRN's
2) They offer me a car worth $5,000
3) They offer to pay me in EURO (Aprox 6,500 of them)
4) They offer to give me a corporate bond, face value of $5,000, with 3% interest payment for 10 years
5) They offer to give me a computer worth $5,000
6) They offer me gold, silver, or other like items of value worth $5,000
7) They offer to pay of $5,000 of an existing loan
8) They offer to supply other services back to me, worth $5,000
9) They offer me $5,000 of diamonds
10) They give me a $5,000 gift card
I could go on

In all the above cases, I have income of $5,000. This is attributed to me when the amount is due, and I have control over it, either through actual receipt or constructive receipt. It is the receipt of value that causes the taxable event. Again, actual receipt, or constructive. When I say constructive, it implies you have control over the asset, but it may not be physical control. For example, number 2 above, I have title, but the car is still parked with the person giving it to me, I am in constructive receipt of it, even though I do not have physical possession.

My point here is that when you perform work, you expect to get something of value in exchange for your labor. This value is quantifiable, and typically paid in USD. Now days, this is done mostly via wire transfer (Direct Deposit) or check, but cash also works. [Although I will leave cash out of this, as most people who work for cash do so, to stay unreported, and will not declare that income]. Regardless of how this value is transferred to you, it is taxable income. What ever you do with it after you get it, or what ever form you get it in, it is still taxable to you upon receipt [constructive or actual].

So that is what I don;t understand, converting or redeeming into lawful money, does not change the fact that it is still earned. I am assuming you will now go back to y charitable deduction simplification. You may now agree with my premise on value as taxable, but then sy you are entitled to deduction against redeemed lawful money. This is my problem, I can not find any code section, regulation, or case that supports a deduction for this. Can anyone show me one as part of the tax code or regs. Tax law is derived from the IRS code and regulations, and case law interpretations of those. So far, the only case law I have found does not support Davids position.

As for the proof David posted, of his banker friend. I will tell you, as a Lawyer in NYC, and being subject myself to NYS/NYC withholding, in looking up the withholding rates, the amount of the refund reflects withholding that would indicate this person is not high up in the organization, and is an entry level employee. While this person may be an authorize tax preparer, they are not a CPA or Lawyer. They are a Junior person, with little experience, and I would say a very basic understanding of the tax law. Again, based on the refund amount, I don't think this person earns enough to even be on the radar of the taxing authority. I used a speeding analogy last post, but here is a better one, I think.

Suppose I am a serial killer. I kill 10 people without getting caught. I am good at what I do, and leave no evidence. Using your logic, I could say that Murder is not a crime, because I have done it 10 times before, but have never been caught, or even questioned. Therefore, it must not be illegal. This is the same as you preparing a low value tax return, claiming a fictitious deduction, getting a refund, and saying the deduction was obviously correct, as the IRS paid the refund. Simply getting the refund is not proof of anything. I have stated before, this will increase your audit risk, and that may result in the IRS examining your returns some day, but who knows when that will be. The IRS is more concerned with large dollar tax cheats, than someone who scams a few thousand dollars. They just don't have the resources.

You could ask for a PLR (Private Letter Ruling) in which the IRS reviews your position and provides analysis, however if the IRS does not agree with you, you will still be bound by their decision). You can get a lawyer to write you a legal opinion, or you can do nothing and hope the IRS never catches you.

Another thing I said, and really mean, I would love to legally pay no tax, and if I can find something that is supported in the law, that would absolve me of my tax obligation, I would want to know about it. But I need to be able to support my position with the existing tax law, and here I am having a problem. There is nothing I can find in the tax code, regulations, or tax law that supports this. In fact case law seems to imply that regardless of form, it is taxable, and that FRN's are lawful money, and that all the provision you site is good for is swapping FRN's for FRN's. If you have a $100 bill in bad condition, you can go to the fed and redeem it for a new $100, redeeming you lawful money for more lawful money. However, I don't want to debate that issue, and until now have steered clear of it. Please just focus on part two, and why the act of redemption for lawful money results in that money being nontaxable, when clearly it has value, and what you got, that you are exchanging also had value.

I hope I addressed the points above. I will not entertain the position that the tax law doesn't apply to you. If you reside in any of the 50 states, regardless of citizenship, you are subject to the tax code. Heck, even foreign workers, here on work permits are subject to US tax. And if you think tax only applies to government workers or some limited subset of employees, I will not debate that absurd position. It has been proven wrong, even among people who argue other positions on not being taxable. I also will not entertain the 861 position or the OID scam, all bad positions, and based on a bad reading of the code, and a lack of understanding of legal writings.

I do really want to continue this discussion, as this theory fascinates me, and I would like to understand the basis for the position, although focused more on why the redemption results in a tax benefit.

[JohnnyCash]

You could ask for a PLR (Private Letter Ruling) in which the IRS reviews ...

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?

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels

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.

[NYGMan-Tax]

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.

[American_National]

There is power in truth, you can not argue with the truth, you can not ignore the truth.

NYGMan-Tax, I agree with what you have stated in the quote above. Since you are an admitted attorney, locating the source reference material to support such a position for these and future questions that build upon the foundational answers you provide below should be really straightforward for you.

From reading your prior posts, the best approach to you answering this lawful money question for yourself is to engage in a dialog that allows you to establish your foundational reference material to support a series of questions that you come up with answers to in this regard.

Here are 5 initial foundational questions for you to answer:

1. Are Federal Reserve notes (FRN's, FRn's, Frn's, etc.) issues of the "United States", or issues of the "Federal Reserve" system/districts, please? (pick one "United States" or "Federal Reserve")

2. Is the "Federal Reserve" a foreign controlled private corporation, please? (yes or no)

3. Does the "United States" sell bonds to fund the costs of its various federal programs and benefits, please? (yes or no)

4. Who is currently the primary purchaser of these bonds, please? (Federal Reserve, China, IMF, IBRD, Great Britain, etc.)

5. Are Federal Reserve notes classified as intangible "bills of exchange", please? (yes or no)

We can incrementally move forward in this dialog once you have located your source reference material that supports and answers these initial 5 questions above. I agree with you that you are the one who must locate the foundational supporting documents that support any position you my choose to take in dealing with IRS in this regard.

I also understand everyone's ongoing frustration in trying to deal with IRS personnel whose greatest accomplishment in life so far has been mastering the ability to verbatim read somewhat at the 6th grade level and attempt to articulate various IRS form instruction sections to you on the phone, which always begin with "generally speaking", and are not to be used by anyone in supporting any position regarding a tax.

The IRS personnel I have dealt with so far also have no training or concept of what codified federal regulations and/or united states codes actually mean, or how to go about properly interpreting them - as ongoingly evidenced by their lack of ability to articulate the "in context" meaning of various regulatory defined terms that come out of their mouths over the phone. I also know the ongoing frustration of trying to get these intellectual giants off their butts long enough to have them seek the advice of their in-house legal counsel prior to re-engaging in an intelligent two-way conversation over the phone in regards to this and other topics.

So, lets do this in small simple steps - (N)ew (Y)ork (G)overnment (Man)-(Tax) attorney, small simple steps. :-)

[Treefarmer]

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. ....
................................................
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.

This looks like a good place for me to jump in.
This thread has taken off faster than I can keep up, which tells me that there must be a vital interest in this topic.

I think that part of the misunderstandings surrounding lawful money stem from some preconceived notions about some people's business practices.
However, not everyone signs W-4 forms, files tax returns or even has bank accounts or driver licenses.
Some of us do have such things, but our income may be so low we get EIC, or perhaps we have no income at all.
So there are many reasons why some people don't file tax returns or pay income taxes.

It has been my personal experience that the IRS is mainly interested in the income (whatever that term may really truly mean) which is
reported to them on information returns. Once income is reported on 1099 forms and W-2 forms or any other info forms, it is taxable by the IRS.
Redeeming lawful money is not applicable there, because it would be after the fact that a contract was signed with the Fed system via SSN,
W-4, signature endorsement at the bank, W-8BEN or whatever, which makes the contracting person a taxpayer, regardless of what they redeem their FRN's for after they receive them.

I think SEDM has done a very good job of documenting how one becomes a taxpayer person via SSN, W-2, etc.

Lawful money however starts with a man or woman standing on land somewhere between the Atlantic ocean on the east, Pacific ocean on the west, and south of the Canadian border, but north of the Mexican border.
This man or woman was forced to memorize, during their younger years while subjected to compulsive schooling, something about a document called the United States Constitution, which is said to be the basis for the government of the geographical territory on which the wo/man is standing.
This document is very interesting and says many things in a strange kind of language which resembles English enough that it can be read by literate English speakers, whether native or otherwise.

In this document is written "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States", "No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken" and then there is an amendment #16 which says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
At first this looks like a contradiction but the Supreme Court assures us it's not, in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103.
"No new power of taxation"....that's good.

The wo/man now engages in lawful private business with other wo/men using cash or other things as a medium of exchange, reports nothing to anyone, and has no trouble with the IRS at all.

If the wo/man has a DL and a bank account with SSN, s/he writes on the back of checks something like this:
"deposit for credit on account or exchange for lawful money of equal face value"
thereby making clear that s/he wants no part of fractional reserve lending and its attending fee schedule and false weights and balances.
S/he gets her cash, reports nothing to anyone, and also has no trouble with the IRS.

This has been my experience with lawful money.

[JohnnyCash]

HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.

Simply getting the refund is not proof of anything. I have stated before, this will increase your audit risk, and that may result in the IRS examining your returns some day, but who knows when that will be.

You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won with lawful money, corporations win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

[martin earl]

HA! Your dis-ingenuity is showing.
You sound skeered. Or are you projecting fear? There is no downside when redeeming lawful money. Aside from record-keeping there is no cost. I have won with lawful money, corporations win with lawful money. In fact everyone here redeeming lawful money, and showing evidence of same (good record-keeping) is winning. The IRS folds. They melt like an illusion. Using Federal Reserve debt notes as money is an illusion GMan. Throw some lawful money on that illusion and she melts like the Wicked Witch of the West.

The days when you could win this with lies and propaganda are long gone, Gman. This isn't your father's Oldsmobile any more.

I do not think he is scared. I think he stands to make a ton of money if he can somehow prove to his rich clients he can show them how to stop paying personal income taxes.

He is simply asking us to show him how to prove to his clients that it is based in law so they will sign the contract giving him a percentage of their "returns" and savings.

I know that is exactly what I would be doing if I were a tax attorney or accountant. He is correct, just showing someone a "tax return" or 2 or some refund checks will not convince business man who is pulling in millions in personal income.

I could be wrong...but I doubt I am...

[David Merrill]

I do not think he is scared. I think he stands to make a ton of money if he can somehow prove to his rich clients he can show them how to stop paying personal income taxes.

He is simply asking us to show him how to prove to his clients that it is based in law so they will sign the contract giving him a percentage of their "returns" and savings.

I know that is exactly what I would be doing if I were a tax attorney or accountant. He is correct, just showing someone a "tax return" or 2 or some refund checks will not convince business man who is pulling in millions in personal income.

I could be wrong...but I doubt I am...

That is an interesting perspective.

[Jethro]

I am trying to simplify multiple code sections and regulations to make it easier to understand. I could quote a series of code sections, but I am trying to explain it is the most basic way. David provides a general overview of his theory without referring to code sections, regulations and case law, so I figured it was the easiest way to do it. I am a tax lawyer by trade, and know the code and regs quite well. However, I prefer to explain in plain English, in a way I hope all can understand. Sure you can search for value, but you won't find it used in the context I am using it, but it is correct. Think about this, you perform a service for someone. The service you just performed has a value to it, and you expect to be compensated for that value. You assign an amount to the worth of that work, typically this is your salary, or hourly wage. Under the code...

Again NYGMan, the problem as I see it is you're beginning with a presumption; a presumption that one is "under the code". How do you know that presumption is correct?

You see, I have a "code," too - Jethro's Tax Code, and under the code everybody owes me One Million Bux. <--- It says so right there. So why haven't you paid me your Million Bux tax?

[JohnnyCash]

Again NYGMan, the problem as I see it is you're beginning with a presumption; a presumption that one is "under the code". How do you know that presumption is correct?

You see, I have a "code," too - Jethro's Tax Code, and under the code everybody owes me One Million Bux.

Jethro! You have the makings of a great scam here. To get it really rolling ... I'd suggest a secret meeting, preferably involving a US Senator, the principals of Jethro's bank, and a central banker (you could channel Paul Warburg if pressed). Here you will hatch a plan to get some legislation passed establishing a new elastic currency, Jethro's Bux. We'll get Congress to declare them legal tender (I hear you can buy a congress-critter quite reasonably). Of course they won't be lawful money (altho redeemable in same) but we can make use of some existing law to collect an excise tax on their use! For distraction, I recommend a 3-million word Internal Jethro Tax Code, non-positive law. Use of your money will extend the federal district out into the States. May need to tweak it here 'n there, PM me, this is brilliant! -- just need to get everyone using them and condition them into believing everything with value is taxable income, not just your beautifully-engraved Federal Jethro notes.

I will also add, I do have access to bank-examiners, attorneys, high net-worth individuals, and am talking to them about ....