Quote Originally Posted by NYGMan-Tax View Post
Let me make this clear, I joined Quatloos very recently, and for the sole purpose of discussing this position with David, in a forum I felt would allow him to explain the technical detail behind his positions. I posted the link because you posted yours. If your position is supported by the law and correct, you have nothing to fear.

As for RICKMAN, your interpretation of this case is not correct, you mistake discussion for holdings, however this is irrelevant to my core question, as I choose not to debate the first part of your theory, my issue is with the position that redeeming renders income non taxable.

I don't know how many times I have to explain, a refund on a return prepared under this theory is not proof this theory has been accepted by the IRS That is not how the IRS works. Let's get off this redeeming point, and back to the taxability of the value of the lawful money you received.
If you carried the same infantile posture as the Quatloser I would completely banish you rather than 2/3 banishment (the other 2 registrations).

I have nothing to fear. It says in the law:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money...

You can choose all the extraverted interpretations of such a simple law to understand, that's okay. You have a career to protect and I understand.

I am processing some video from yesterday at the Mason Museum.

I can assure you that your interpretation of Rickman is misapplied to people redeeming lawful money. We understand the reality of FDR's gold seizure in 1933. We make our demand without like Gary RICKMAN expecting metal.