Redeeming Lawful Money on Daily Paul

[Keith Alan]

I believe the question for #4 is, "Is redeemed lawful money taxable income?"

Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

[shikamaru]

Or is it even income in the first place?

I'm beginning to think it's merely receiving payment, and not the fruit of an investment.

Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

[David Merrill]

David, a composite of your comments above.

Some thoughts here if the bank refuses your novation and a strike-thru of W-9 verbiage (declaring 'U.S. person or U.S. citizen), relative to presenting your FRB lawful-money demand letter/proof-of-service:

If your lawful money demand is consistently executed and your record-keeping is pristine in that regard, would you think there is still any conflict with signing to that W-9 verbiage i.e. 'U.S person/citizen'?

As you have mentioned on many occasions the remedy necessary as written in law, I would think your demand and proper execution of that demand would supercede signing to that 'U.S. person/citizen' declaration (under duress no less).

Would like your thoughts (and others) relative to this example. I'm embarking on a new account and trying to cover my tracks and know the law.

I am transformed daily.

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

What do you think?

I believe that is very important - what you think. Make your demand and presume that you have done all you can do. What you think about the SSN as contractual nexus will decide how you handle somebody using the W-4 against you.

Some people have made their demand on the W-4 successfully and filed accordingly. No refund though because the boss sent no withholdings. But I don't like when people involve their bosses like that. One nasty call from the IRS and your boss will send withholdings with no exemptions and next layoffs you will be on the tip of the pink slips.

[allodial]

The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I know of at least one situation where someone got a job without an SSN between 2002 and present. The company put 000-00-0000 in for SSN on checks and such but still withheld FICA. A US passport was the sole ID used for the job--the I-9 instructions at least then indicated a US passport suffices as a stand-alone document.

Regarding territories of the United States, it might be important to consider Social Security Districts as territories or states of the United States.This might have significance with regard to FICA.

[itsmymoney]

Mr Merrill wrote: The items founded in fact and law seem stable enough but new nuances and colors form so that the impression I get from your post is to explain that the SSN is a key component to the W-4 and any other income tax form. Whether Social Security is a valid income tax like the Supreme Court said back in what (New Deal) 1938, or it is nothing more than a latent insurance policy about old age and disability; that is between your ears.

I'm thinking more of the 'U.S. person' declaration (under duress) with respect to that being a 'Federal privilege' therefore the 'income' you receive as that 'person' is administered/taxed via the excise tax it is intended to be. Employment tax (W-4) as you know is in a different Subtitle (C) than 'income' tax (A). The W-4 (Employment tax on 'wages') allows them to ALSO withhold against any potential 'income' tax liability under (A). The key is potential liability. If ALL pay was 'income' (which is what most people think) regardless of deductions or not, then 'wages' would be written as such under Subtitle A but it is not. 'Wages' is also not listed within Sec 61 as a source of 'Gross Income'.

However, by your research on this subject relative to lawful money, it would appear that 'wages' BECOMES 'income' under Subtitle A when you DO NOT restrict the payment in lawful money, which also supports the theory that if you do not redeem in lawful money then the 'U.S. person' comes into play by signing that W-9 or equivalent, therefore you have exacted 'Federal privilege' and now you must report that income as 'income', i.e. 'taxable income'.

[Keith Alan]

Income is property and not property.
Income, in general understanding, is property. For purposes of taxation, it is not property.

Income tax is an excise tax. It is an event tax. It is a tax on a privilege, benefit, or occupation.
Income tax is a burden assessed against the person.

I find that interesting. If I trade you an apple for a pear, did either of us have income? If the taxable event is our trade, how can the trade be quantified, since we didn't use FRN's?

In the same manner, if someone is receiving lawful money, he isn't receiving income, at least to the way I'm understanding it today. He is merely being paid.

I think people dealing in FRN's are in reality factoring agents for their principal, the Fed. Everything they do is meant to generate a profit to the Fed in the overall scheme of things. The money they generate from their dealings is income, and the Fed wants a percentage returned.

[martin earl]

My opinion: No.

Legal tender laws are obligations on creditors. Creditors must accept the tender of FRNs by debtors.

There is also the problem of your profession. I'm sure real estate is a "covered employment" as well as a public interest attaching thereto.

If you are incorporated, there is another latch as well.
I'm sure you are insured as well......

I do not agree that one has to accept FRNs for payment, if that was true, then our demands for lawful money would hold no legal standing. The demand for lawful money, is, in fact, a refusal of FRNs.

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise." http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx

I always demand lawful money and when I pay in cash, I tell the other party I am using lawful money to pay. Simply putting up a NOTICE in any Corporation:

"Only Lawful money accepted for payments" will suffice. There is no law that requires one to accept FRNs as payment, there are court cases that denote US Bank notes must be accepted, but never have I seen one that rules FRNs must be accepted.

[mikecz]

Ok, some insights on the 42.22 dollars per ounce of gold held at the treasury. Last definition of the dollar is 42.22, so assume that is the price...

http://goldcoin.org/gold/the-united-...holdings/2974/


On the first of June, 2011, testimony by Scott G. Alvarez, General Counsel, and Thomas C. Baxter Jr., General Counsel, Federal Reserve (formal testimony here) before the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., of which Dr Paul was the Chairman, on Federal Reserve Lending Disclosures, exposed the nature of the “gold certificate account” in exchanges between Dr Paul and Mr Alvarez.

Crucially, it transpires that these certificates are not even claims to the actual gold that the Treasury confiscated. Said Mr Alvarez: “No we have no interest in the gold that is owned by the Treasury. We have simply an accounting document that is called gold certificates that represents the value at a statutory rate that we gave to the Treasury in 1934.?

In a fascinating analysis of this extraordinary statement, GoldNews.Com discusses what this means in terms of the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve: “The Treasury, however, in a desire to realize the value of the gold without selling it, used their gold as collateral against gold certificate issuance to the Fed in exchange for fresh cash for the Treasury to spend. The Treasury is able to print as many gold certificates as they choose, under one restriction from the Gold Reserve Act: the amount of gold certificates outstanding shall at no time exceed the value of gold held by the Treasury, priced at the statutory rate. This meant any increase in the value of the Treasury’s gold could be matched by printing gold certificates and those certificates could be used to acquire new Federal Reserve Notes (dollars) from the Fed.”

This is Quantitative Easing with a vengeance! In order to have more money to spend, the Fed is asked to print more notes, in return for which, and in order, presumably, not to disturb the “statutory” price recorded on the Fed’s accounts, the Treasury then prints more gold certificates.

An upshot of this is that the dollar is worth a good deal less than is assumed. And a corollary of this is that the manner in which the Treasury acquired the gold and its subsequent valuation as “gold certificates” would explain why, as noted above, the U.S. insisted on maintaining the dollar price at $35 for so long: it was an accountancy exercise and no more, and continues as such to this day.


http://www.eutimes.net/2011/06/feder...o-gold-at-all/

This article clears it up...

Also, http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section16.htm

There is some good stuff about lawful money in the above webpage, most interesting though is #5. A federal reserve bank, here I assume any member, can reduce it's liability of outstanding notes (which why would they ever) by turning in their FRNs, gold certificates, sdrs, or LAWFUL MONEY. The agent receives the deposit and lowers their liability. These gold certificates seem to float inter Federal Reserve bank as currency. Good as gold right...the problem is, if gold goes down.

[mikecz]

This one is for you David,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5117

(B)

I found it!

(b) The Secretary shall issue gold certificates against gold transferred under subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary may issue gold certificates against other gold held in the Treasury. The Secretary may prescribe the form and denominations of the certificates. The amount of outstanding certificates may be not more than the value (for the purpose of issuing those certificates, of 42 and two-ninths dollars a fine troy ounce) of the gold held against gold certificates. The Secretary shall hold gold in the Treasury equal to the required dollar amount as security for gold certificates issued after January 29, 1934.


Sorry for the long post, but, disseminate as you wish.

[David Merrill]

Thanks for the insightful links, research and conclusions.

The way I understand it is that the price was stabilized until the Amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreements around 1976. That was when gold was transferred to the IMF Trust Fund. Ergo we still find international gold earmarked at that $42.22/troy ounce.