Taxes and the gold standard

[lamric]

In the early 1980’s there was a movement that claimed since US currency was no longer based on the gold and silver standard, and federal tax codes stated that taxes should be paid in gold or silver, you didn’t have to pay taxes. Does this argument hold any water or did all these people end up in prison on income tax evasion (like Al Capone)?

[Coldfire]

Welcome aboard, lamric. This sort of question belongs in our General Questions forum. I’ll move it there for you.

[Crafter_Man]

Go here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=42859
BTW: I’m currently reading the book “Good-By April 15th” by Boston T. Party:

http://javelinpress.com/gbye.html

It is the author’s contention that you are not required to pay federal income tax.

I’ll let you know if I agree with him after I finish the book.

[hardhead365]

Crafter_man
It doesn’t really matter if you agree with Boston T. Party, what matters is does the IRS agree with him. I assure you they don’t.

[wevets]

*Originally posted by lamric *
and federal tax codes stated that taxes should be paid in gold or silver

Stated? If they don’t state that anymore, how could it possibly be relevant now?

I’m also curious as to where the tax codes stated this…

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by hardhead365 *
**Crafter_man
It doesn’t really matter if you agree with Boston T. Party, what matters is does the IRS agree with him. I assure you they don’t. **

In general, it is the IRS’ opinion that you, me, and Boston T. Party should pay federal income taxes.

But it really doesn’t matter what the IRS’ opinion is. What matters is the law. We are all bounded by law, even the IRS.

So what does the law say about your “requirement” to pay taxes?

Suffice to say, it is a very complex issue, and thorough knowledge of Constitutional and case law is required to even begin debating the topic. It would be much too simplistic to say, “you are required to pay federal income tax.” It would also be much too simplistic to say, “you are not required to pay federal income tax.” Again, it is a very complex issue.

But what can be said is this:

1. Many people are serving time in prison for tax evasion.
2. Many people (who earn income) have successfully challenged the IRS, and are not paying any federal income tax. These folks have not been charged with any crime, are not in prison, and the IRS appears powerless to do anything about it.

So how can this be?

Answer: It is possible to challenged the IRS, win, and not pay any federal income tax. But in order to be successful, you must a) Be lucky, and b) make the right arguments.

[Zumba_The_Cat]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**…
2. Many people (who earn income) have successfully challenged the IRS, and are not paying any federal income tax. These folks have not been charged with any crime, are not in prison, and the IRS appears powerless to do anything about it…
**

I know that this isn’t Great Debates. But, could you please site one such case?

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by Zumba The Cat *
**

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**…
2. Many people (who earn income) have successfully challenged the IRS, and are not paying any federal income tax. These folks have not been charged with any crime, are not in prison, and the IRS appears powerless to do anything about it…
**

I know that this isn’t Great Debates. But, could you please site one such case? **

Not off-hand, but there are a number of good books that discuss real cases. One of these is Boston T. Party’s book “Good-Bye April 15th.” There are many others.

I am certainly not an expert in this area. I find it very interesting, if nothing else. And yes, I do pay taxes. Always have, probably always will. Again, I just find this topic to be very interesting, which is why I’m presenting reading Boston’s book.

[starfish]

Zumba

This does sound like a Great Debate.

WAG - People who fought the IRS and won where found not to owe any net taxes so they PAY nothing. Their deductions/credits balance what they owe.

[Zumba_The_Cat]

I didn’t think that you could site a real tax case. I doubt that “Boston T. Party” can either. He doesn’t even have the guts to use his real name on his book. Forgive me if I don’t think

If he does cite any real cases I would love to know what they are. My bet is he discusses “real” cases and does not cite so you can’t look them up yourself. I am not going to buy his bood because I think it would be a waste of time and money.

[Zumba_The_Cat]

Also please forgive me for not properly proof reading my post. I meant to delete that whole sentence.

I generally do think. Even if my thoughts aren’t very good ones.

[hardhead365]

I thought that Boston T. Party looked familiar, I just went back and re-read Crafter_Man’s original post in this thread. Other than Crafter_Man’s salutation to the OP his post was cut and pasted from his 10/16/00 post. If the book sucks so bad you can’t finish it in more than 54 days, how can you recommend that someone else read it for the information it contains? All the arguements have been made before, if you would like a trip to Club Fed, be my guest (I guess I’ll be buying).

[Billdo]

From the Tax Protester FAQ:

Receipt of Federal Reserve Notes is not “income” because Federal Reserve Notes are not lawful money (“coins
in gold or silver”) within the meaning of the constitution.

 Although tax protesters and other critics of modern banking like to claim only gold and silver can be "money," there is no such limitation in the Constitution. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states that "No State shall ... coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...," but Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 states that Congress shall have the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin," with no mention of any restriction to gold or silver. This difference has been clearly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court:

      "The constitutional authority of Congress to provide a currency for the whole countryis now firmly established ... By the constitution of the United States, the several states are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold or silver a tender of payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from these to deny to Congress either of these powers.... Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its powers to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to established a national currency, either in coin or in paper and to make the currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals." Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884).

 How do courts respond when taxpayers claim that the receipt of federal reserve notes is not "income"?

      "Plaintiffs further seek an injunction against the Internal Revenue Service ('IRS') to prevent tax collection activities on federal reserve notes, contending that federal reserve notes are not lawful money of the United States 'as defined and intended by the spirit of the Constitution' and that Congress has violated the separation of powers doctrine by issuing federal reserve notes which are not redeemable in coin, thereby rendering federal reserve notes 'counterfeit securities.' ... Plaintiffs are incorrect.
      "The contention that paper money is illegal has been consistently rejected. [Citations omitted.]
      "Congress has exercised this power [to establish a national currency] by delegation to the federal reserve system. 12 U.S.C. section 411. Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. section 392; Milam v. U.S. 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Constitution, art. 1, section 10, 'prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver, but does not limit Congress' power to declare what shall be legal tender for all debts.' U.S. v. Rifen, 577 F.2d 1111,1112 (8th Cir. 1978). Since Congress has done so, there can be no valid challenge to the legality of federal reserve notes. United States v. Anderson, 584 F.2d 369, 374 (10th Cir. 1978)." Wilson v. United States of America, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-785 (D.Col. 1998).

 See also, Guaranty Trust Co. v. Henwood, 307 U.S. 247 (1939); Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935); United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 963 (1976); United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den. 429 U.S. 818; United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28 (8th Cir. 1937), cert den. 414 U.S. 1064 (1973); Cupp v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 68 (1975), aff'd 559 F.2d 1207 (3rd Cir. 1975); United State v. Porth, 426 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 824 (1970).

On that site, the claims made by Mr. “Party” and other tax protesters are thouroughly debunked.

Short answer: You have to pay taxes. Sorry.

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by Zumba The Cat *
I didn’t think that you could site a real tax case. I doubt that “Boston T. Party” can either. He doesn’t even have the guts to use his real name on his book.

His real name is Kenneth W. Royce.

*Originally posted by Zumba The Cat *
If he does cite any real cases I would love to know what they are. My bet is he discusses “real” cases and does not cite so you can’t look them up yourself.

I’m only about a third of the way through it, and haven’t got to the case law stuff yet. Grad school keeps getting in the way.

• I am not going to buy his bood because I think it would be a waste of time and money. **

Hey, to each his own.

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by hardhead365 *
**I thought that Boston T. Party looked familiar, I just went back and re-read Crafter_Man’s original post in this thread. Other than Crafter_Man’s salutation to the OP his post was cut and pasted from his 10/16/00 post. If the book sucks so bad you can’t finish it in more than 54 days, how can you recommend that someone else read it for the information it contains? All the arguements have been made before, if you would like a trip to Club Fed, be my guest (I guess I’ll be buying). **

Oh dear, was I plagiarizing myself?

I didn’t have anything more to add at the time, which explains the cut-n-paste. (I know, bad form.) But you’re right; I have been slacking on the book. I’m about a third of the way through it (stupid classes and job keep getting in the way), but I’m in no hurry to finish it. After all, I highly doubt I will seriously pursue the “tax free” lifestyle. I just find the whole topic fascinating.

[Zumba_The_Cat]

*Originally posted by Crafter_Man *
**I’m only about a third of the way through it, and haven’t got to the case law stuff yet. Grad school keeps getting in the way.
**

When you get to the case law stuff I would love you to post some of it. Just skim the last two thrids if have some time during Christmas break. I am willing to bet isn’t there.

I have been reading tax court cases for years. Every month I see new tax avoidence cases. They always lose.

[DSYoungEsq]

You have to love people who buy a book that is sold under the pretense of offering ‘free money’. I define ‘free money’ as money you can have that you don’t currently have without doing any real work, or without taking any risk. An example of ‘free money’ would be making considerable sums of profit from easy trading of real estate bought at sherrif’s auction, or some such thing.

The main reason people are willing to believe in free money is simple enough to understand. What isn’t so easy to understand is what makes people think that ‘free money’, if obtainable, hasn’t been obtained by everyone already? If you really could get away with paying no income tax without running the risk of criminal and civil penalties and punishment, wouldn’t everyone do it? I mean, what makes someone think that just a few people have managed to figure out how to beat the government, or the market, or the whatever?

Boston T. Party doesn’t give a rats ass if you ever pay taxes or not. He DOES care if you buy the book. And I will be willing to bet dollars against donuts that Mr. Party either pays taxes, or if he isn’t, is in the middle of criminal or civil litigation over that failure.

Folks, the minute someone manages to figure out a legal reason not to pay income taxes, they will simply amend the tax code. What, you think Congress is so stupid they can’t figure out how to stop it? Duh.

[Scylla]

Actually there is such a thing as “Free money.”

It’s called arbitrage, and means riskless trading.

Basically, you monitor several different markets, looking for inefficiencies in securities. Once in a while you are able to simultaneously by and sell a security on different exchanges, making an instant profit, by taking advantage of these inefficencies.

Unfortunately it’s very hard to learn how to do, takes a great investment of capital, carries lots of risk, and is very hard work.

But who said free money was easy?

[Crafter_Man]

*Originally posted by DSYoungEsq *
**

Boston T. Party doesn’t give a rats ass if you ever pay taxes or not. He DOES care if you buy the book.
**

If I were Boston I wouldn’t care either. I mean, c’mon: Does any author genuinely care about their readership? Does the author of my car’s repair manual really car if I fix my car? Of course not. It is an author’s job to inform, not “care.” If you want someone to “care” about you, go to church.

But I can say this: Boston puts a lot of effort into his books. They are well researched, articulate, thought provoking, and, quite frankly, fun to read. He is not a charlatan, but a very honest, genuine, moral person. While I don’t necessarily agree with all of his opinions, I do have a tremendous amount of respect for him. (BTW: I have all seven of his books, and have read all but two. Suffice to say, he’s one of my favorite authors.)

*Originally posted by DSYoungEsq *
**
I will be willing to bet dollars against donuts that Mr. Party either pays taxes, or if he isn’t, is in the middle of criminal or civil litigation over that failure.
**

Boston does not pay taxes. He is also not in jail and not “hiding out” from authorities. In fact, he gives lectures every now and then on a variety of topics, and the public is invited.

But here’s the thing you must realize: Just because someone else has done something does not mean you or I are capable of doing it. For example, there are some folks who have made lots of $$ buying and selling homes “for no money down.” And some of these people have put together courses that attempt to “teach you how to do it.” But guess what? Those courses are a waste of money. Why? Because there are some things you cannot teach. It takes special talent, a special attitude, and a special personality to successfully make money in a risky business such as “buying/selling homes with no money down.”

The same applies if you try to pursue a “tax free” life style. Having a special talent, attitude, and personality is a prerequisite for success. I do not believe your “Average Joe” can be taught how to legally make money without paying taxes, Boston’s book not withstanding. And this is why I will not pursue it: I don’t have the talent, attitude, and personality to pull it off. (In addition, it also takes an obsessive amount of perseverance, guts, and myopic dedication. And I’m not up for that either.)

[DSYoungEsq]

Oh, please, we are expected to believe that someone, through application of some intricate scheme, which only he and some select few can manage to carry off, fails to do without penalty what all the rest of us slobs end up doing cause we’re too lazy to carry it through, but is willing to tell us exactly how to do exactly what he does, without the authorities figuring it all out and closing the ‘loophole’ that allows this guy and his select few to get away with thier amazing feat of tax evasion?

Some people are really gullible.