Famspear's secret information

[Farmer Giles]

it's not too hard for anyone with a high school education to understand.

So, you are correct that someone with a general high schol education is going to have problems with it and could get frustrated.

did you miss the "not"? Its NOT hard at all for a high school graduate...nothng is, not even real work like auto mechanics.

Otherwise, for deep, complicated tax issues, take it up with a tax expert and treat it the same way you would have an expert mechanic look at your car's engine.

who probably has a high school degree!

[bmielke]

who probably has a high school degree!

I was going try to fix it for you but I had now I dea what you were getting at.

Is your point that the Mechanic has a HS Degree?

If so, then Accountants, Lawyers, Doctors, and most other professions earning more then minimum wage require one, you can barely even get into the military with out one anymore. The point CKB is making is that a mechanic spends hundreds of hours studying cars, an accountant spends hundreds of hours studying accounting, a lawyer hundreds of hours studying the law.

[The Operative]

Everyone on the board has so far agreed with me:

Not even close.

There is always a taxless alternative.

No, there are instances where a transaction does not lead to taxes and there are items excluded or deducted from gross income, but there is NOT always a taxless alternative.

That the original equity is routinely discounted.

You are misusing accounting terms. Equity contributions by an owner in a company increase stockholders' equity but do not result in income. However, the definition of equity contribution is not what you claim it is.

That accession is different from succession.

Yes, those words have different meanings.

That Income is only derivable by its basic concept. You can't normally accrue Income, it's a contradiction in terms since Income is a benefit derived from a 3rd party.

You are attempting to use big words without understanding their meaning.

That the same transaction can equally be categorized in some nonliable manner, and any limitation to this is artificial. Since it can’t be found in nature, it has to come by attachment.

If the law says no, then no you cannot categorize a transaction in any manner that you see fit. See 26 USC 446. BTW, except as otherwise provided by law, the taxable income from farming of a corporation or partnership engaged in the trade or business of farming shall be computed using the accrual method of accounting.

If I’ve shown that posters make wrong statements, well, that’s because the statement are wrong. It has nothing to do with “knowing more” than anyone else, professional or otherwise. You just don’t like it that the Truth is being pointed out, so you try to disparage somehow te messenger.

No, you have not. Many posters here have tried to explain to you over the past 250 posts that you are wrong, that you have many concepts mixed up and, in general, do not know what you are talking about.

[Farmer Giles]

Everyone on the board has so far agreed with me:

There is always a taxless alternative.

That the original equity is routinely discounted.

That accession is different from succession.

That Income is only derivable by its basic concept. You can't normally accrue Income, it's a contradiction in terms since Income is a benefit derived from a 3rd party.

That the same transaction can equally be categorized in some nonliable manner, and any limitation to this is artificial. Since it can’t be found in nature, it has to come by attachment.

I disagree with the first statement. I don't understand the other statements enough to even guess at what you think they mean., so I certainly don't agree with them.

then you disagree with Famspear and any number of others, or maybe you have better "secret spells". I'm sure you do understand quite well the points I made, you just dont care to answer them. If there was a doubt you could refer pack to POST ONE of the orignal thread, where so many showed so stupid to so few.

if there is only one way out its enough. maybe the distinction between "accession" and "succession" is new, but I think the Court in Glenshaw spoke with a purpose.

And the Law everywhere, is very clear on the "derived" nature of Income. care to comment?

[Farmer Giles]

who probably has a high school degree!

I was going try to fix it for you but I had now I dea what you were getting at.

Is your point that the Mechanic has a HS Degree?

If so, then Accountants, Lawyers, Doctors, and most other professions earning more then minimum wage require one, you can barely even get into the military with out one anymore. The point CKB is making is that a mechanic spends hundreds of hours studying cars, an accountant spends hundreds of hours studying accounting, a lawyer hundreds of hours studying the law.

exactly. It has to do with hands on experience. Most people dont need to know how to fix an engune, but we can keep and maintain the car well enough without a mechanic. And many "dyi-ers" will learn a lot of these things. I dont need to be an expert mechanic in even one type of automble to understand te most basic structure of its system. Yet we have people saying things like " you gotta pay taxes or they'll put you in jaol", and of course there is a class that benefits from this 'misinformation'. More people could probably explain how a car runs than a simple economic proposition, even though its very similar.

And notice all the mystery and “professional secrecy” that surrounds the issue. Ever ask yourself how all these craptacular populist rage court cases come to be in the first place? How come no one makes at least a reasonably decent effort to present a coherent position? There are some “insecurities”, lets say, in any system.

I can hardly expect to find what I need among the various mechanics out there if I havent got the first clue what I want. Some of us are less suited to that particular action and it is hoped that everyone can count on some effective asistance of counsel.

If you want good service, get educated.

[Farmer Giles]

I've never worked on a farm a day in my life.

I wonder if youve ever worked a day in your life... it would change the way you see things.

[bmielke]

FG maybe you didn't stop in your haste to post your theory's, but we have public archive. Go there and read about Ed Brown. He was convicted of Tax Evasion, there are most likely dozens of others, but, Ed made for good reading.

Then go read the USC it is avaible online.

Tax Evasion is a crime.

To keep the mechanic theme going, I can change my oil and tune up my car, but before I do I must realize that it is gasoline powered and a V6 if I don't I will get the wrong parts and screw something up. Likewise, I can do my own taxes, but I must realize that I have to file, there is a body of law and I have to follow that body of law. Now I really can't imagine doing my own taxes when H&R Block does them for $39 it would just take too much time and effort, and I might screw something up.

[Duke2Earl]

You cannot 'structure' a transaction to eliminate that income unless the selling price is lowered to be equal to or less than the cost of making the product.
Look up SFAC No. 5 and SFAC No. 6.

thats exactly the model I proposed. Bond the grocery, credit the value to the owners, and sell at cost.

Does anyone know what this actually means in English? Can anyone explain in actual English how this transaction actually goes. Does he think that barter transactions done on a delayed basis aren't taxable?

[The Operative]

You cannot 'structure' a transaction to eliminate that income unless the selling price is lowered to be equal to or less than the cost of making the product.
Look up SFAC No. 5 and SFAC No. 6.

thats exactly the model I proposed. Bond the grocery, credit the value to the owners, and sell at cost.

Nonsense. If everything is sold at cost, then the value of the business would never increase. Businesses are in business to make a profit and increase in value. Revenues minus expenses is equal to net income. Net income that is retained by the company and not distributed to owners is added to retained earnings. Retained earnings are listed in the stockholders' equity section of the balance sheet.

'Bond the grocery, credit the value to the owners, and sell at cost' is nonsense.

BTW, I have had it with you. You are not understanding the simplest of concepts and I am not going to try to explain it to you anymore. One last thing nitwit, I do not care what you think because you have shown you lack the capacity for coherent thought.

[Cpt Banjo]

Everyone on the board has so far agreed with me:

Not even close.

There is always a taxless alternative.

No, there are instances where a transaction does not lead to taxes and there are items excluded or deducted from gross income, but there is NOT always a taxless alternative.

That the original equity is routinely discounted.

You are misusing accounting terms. Equity contributions by an owner in a company increase stockholders' equity but do not result in income. However, the definition of equity contribution is not what you claim it is.

That accession is different from succession.

Yes, those words have different meanings.

That Income is only derivable by its basic concept. You can't normally accrue Income, it's a contradiction in terms since Income is a benefit derived from a 3rd party.

You are attempting to use big words without understanding their meaning.

That the same transaction can equally be categorized in some nonliable manner, and any limitation to this is artificial. Since it can’t be found in nature, it has to come by attachment.

If the law says no, then no you cannot categorize a transaction in any manner that you see fit. See 26 USC 446. BTW, except as otherwise provided by law, the taxable income from farming of a corporation or partnership engaged in the trade or business of farming shall be computed using the accrual method of accounting.

If I’ve shown that posters make wrong statements, well, that’s because the statement are wrong. It has nothing to do with “knowing more” than anyone else, professional or otherwise. You just don’t like it that the Truth is being pointed out, so you try to disparage somehow te messenger.

No, you have not. Many posters here have tried to explain to you over the past 250 posts that you are wrong, that you have many concepts mixed up and, in general, do not know what you are talking about.

Operative has put it very succinctly, FG. You are using words without fully understanding their meaning. You may think you do, but you really don't. Sometimes the words are strung together in a sentence, but they make no sense at all (this stuff about bonding the grocery and crediting the owners is pure gibberish).

Incidentally, another example of accruing income for tax purposes is original issue discount under Section 1272 of the Code. Suppose you buy a $10,000 zero-coupon bond (i.e., a bond that pays no interest) that matures in 7 years. Because it doesn't pay any interest, the bond is sold at a discount -- that is, you will pay less than $10,000 when you buy it. The bond will increase in value over time as it approaches the maturity date, and the law requires that you report this increase in value as income. In accounting terminology, the statute requires that you use the accrual method to report the income represented by the increase in the bond's value.

By the way, your original claim that one can avoid taxation by mortgaging a house and allowing the lender to foreclose is pure nonsense, as Famspear has indicated. Just ask anyone who was burned in the real estate downturn of the 80's. Foreclosure can lead to very serious tax consequences. That's why the Code was amended in 2007 and 2008 to give relief to homeowners who were under water with respect to their mortgates (i.e., the home was worth less than the balance on the debt) -- otherwise, they might have to recognize income on foreclosure.

[Farmer Giles]

Farmer Giles, it sounds like your proposal is to tell a financier they owe you part of their property because you have given them a document that says so. Or maybe you can give an example of whose property the lien would give you the right to keep or sell?

Any property. There are public registries for the purpose of recording documents. Is that feigned ignorance?

What about just selling a lien altogether. This parallels more closely the idea of "i'll bond your grocery and credit the value. Then I'll sell at cost and avoid any gains."

What's my basis in the lien? I already had it, like any other acquired equity. In fact the asset didnt exist until I created it, just as I create value working in a trade or business...think of it this way; I deposit the lien with a financier, who credits the money. Everyone is happy. Eventually the lien covers nothing as it's collateral is consumed or the filing expires.

In your bonded grocery example, by selling at cost and avoiding any gains, how does the grocer pay his... costs

With the value he was credited as the owner. Just like a house-builder works.

By the way, a bond is a promise to perform and a lien is a possible result of the failure to perform so how is selling a lien equal to bonding groceries?

No, the lien is recorded as the bond itself. Think “mortage”. Not “if you dont”, but rather “it already is”. Well if I want to avoid “selling” the lien then I can’t “do” that, although it seems completely subjective what we call the transaction. (which is the real point).

So I will credit the value of the lien instead. Better?

I am pretty sure creating a lien requires a signed legal contract permitting a lien upon non-payment or a court order or both. In your lien example, you

already had it, like any other acquired equity.

How did you get it?

You are pretty wrong if you exclude filing a lien from the begining of any process. We’ve got UCC, and the Deeds Registry, and the Prothonotary, and the State UCC, and who knows where else to record our documents. There is no lack of forum.

If you bought it, did you create income for the other party by paying them more than it cost them?

They acquired it without cost, the lien bonds the grocery they already have, lick, stock and barrel. Its the same as my ownership of anything else that hasn’t passed that magical border called “full realization”.

For all I know they paid me anyway. They paid me a bonded lien for some money. They spent the lien.

If you produce it yourself, try not to be too surprised when the financier you try to deposit it with "for value" laughs (or, worse for you, considers it a hold-up note).

It’s exactly what the financial markets already do in the trillions daily. Maybe i can’t participate, but I can certainly create any paperwork structures if thats whats needed. But it isnt neccesary, I really just want to show that the whole thing is bogus without of course jurisdiction by attachment. Thats is, the artificial nexus that is the great big secret of OZ. Do not pay any attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!

A lien does not get 'consumed' nor does it expire.

Every filing has an expiration date and one can be set in the agreement. Every civil law at least has a legal time limitation. So they do indeed expire. If you think a lien is not EFFECTIVELY ‘consumed’, try collecting on eaten groceries.

It is either paid as agreed (discharged) or the creditor takes possession to affect discharge (think repossessed car).

Yes and when the credit takes possesion to affect discharge that is outside the scope of income.


Nice Try, though!

[Farmer Giles]

BTW, I have had it with you.

I sincerely hope so. Its funny, how all you can answer is by repeating some OTHER TRANSACTION. I'll accept the continued refusal to address the ACTUAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED, as at least some others have bothered to try... as an admission that you still have your head in that place we talked about a few threads ago.

I WILL NOT CHANGE MY TRANSACTION TO SUIT YOU. I dont care what you do, in your business, this is MY business.

[Cpt Banjo]

Yes and when the credit [sic] takes possesion to affect [sic] discharge that is outside the scope of income.

You are very, very wrong. I would tell you why, except that Famspear has indicated that he will do so and I don't want to step on his toes.

[The Operative]

BTW, I have had it with you.

I sincerely hope so. Its funny, how all you can answer is by repeating some OTHER TRANSACTION. I'll accept the continued refusal to address the ACTUAL STRUCTURE PROPOSED, as at least some others have bothered to try... as an admission that you still have your head in that place we talked about a few threads ago.

I WILL NOT CHANGE MY TRANSACTION TO SUIT YOU. I dont care what you do, in your business, this is MY business.

I have told you why you cannot structure it the way you want and I did address it. BTW, it is not TO SUIT ME. IT IS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. Obviously, you are too stupid to see that. Just like you are too stupid to see that the law says you are a resident of a state if you live in a place permanently or for an extended length of time within the boundaries of a state.

[Brandybuck]

My goal was to get banned for speaking the truth, so if this is a 'slow ban' then its just as well. .

Yeah, so you could go back to a TD site and tell all the nutters that you got banned for speaking the troof. Pathetic. You're like those women (or men) who claim all men (or women) are pigs because they won't date them, when in fact it's their extreme lack of bathing that's preventing social interactions with the opposite gender.

[Duke2Earl]

I do not even understand the "structure" allegedly proposed.

[LPC]

You're like those women (or men) who claim all men (or women) are pigs because they won't date them, when in fact it's their extreme lack of bathing that's preventing social interactions with the opposite gender.

Either lack of personal hygiene or their personalities. (The latter is what lawyers use for birth control.)

[LPC]

Does anyone know what this actually means in English? Can anyone explain in actual English how this transaction actually goes.

As near as I can tell, FG's contribution to jurisprudence is the principle that you can have a job and work without owing any taxes as long as you don't get paid.

And that's true as far as it goes, but I don't know if FG has yet figured out how to pay for food and shelter. I'm sure that once we get that teensy-weensy little detail worked out, it will all be clear as mud.

[Dr. Caligari]

Farmer Giles, it sounds like your proposal is to tell a financier they owe you part of their property because you have given them a document that says so. Or maybe you can give an example of whose property the lien would give you the right to keep or sell?

Any property. There are public registries for the purpose of recording documents. Is that feigned ignorance?

What about just selling a lien altogether. This parallels more closely the idea of "i'll bond your grocery and credit the value. Then I'll sell at cost and avoid any gains."

What's my basis in the lien? I already had it, like any other acquired equity. In fact the asset didnt exist until I created it, just as I create value working in a trade or business...think of it this way; I deposit the lien with a financier, who credits the money. Everyone is happy. Eventually the lien covers nothing as it's collateral is consumed or the filing expires.

In your bonded grocery example, by selling at cost and avoiding any gains, how does the grocer pay his... costs

With the value he was credited as the owner. Just like a house-builder works.

By the way, a bond is a promise to perform and a lien is a possible result of the failure to perform so how is selling a lien equal to bonding groceries?

No, the lien is recorded as the bond itself. Think “mortage”. Not “if you dont”, but rather “it already is”. Well if I want to avoid “selling” the lien then I can’t “do” that, although it seems completely subjective what we call the transaction. (which is the real point).

So I will credit the value of the lien instead. Better?

I am pretty sure creating a lien requires a signed legal contract permitting a lien upon non-payment or a court order or both. In your lien example, you How did you get it?

You are pretty wrong if you exclude filing a lien from the begining of any process. We’ve got UCC, and the Deeds Registry, and the Prothonotary, and the State UCC, and who knows where else to record our documents. There is no lack of forum.

If you bought it, did you create income for the other party by paying them more than it cost them?

They acquired it without cost, the lien bonds the grocery they already have, lick, stock and barrel. Its the same as my ownership of anything else that hasn’t passed that magical border called “full realization”.

For all I know they paid me anyway. They paid me a bonded lien for some money. They spent the lien.

If you produce it yourself, try not to be too surprised when the financier you try to deposit it with "for value" laughs (or, worse for you, considers it a hold-up note).

It’s exactly what the financial markets already do in the trillions daily. Maybe i can’t participate, but I can certainly create any paperwork structures if thats whats needed. But it isnt neccesary, I really just want to show that the whole thing is bogus without of course jurisdiction by attachment. Thats is, the artificial nexus that is the great big secret of OZ. Do not pay any attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!

A lien does not get 'consumed' nor does it expire.

Every filing has an expiration date and one can be set in the agreement. Every civil law at least has a legal time limitation. So they do indeed expire. If you think a lien is not EFFECTIVELY ‘consumed’, try collecting on eaten groceries.

It is either paid as agreed (discharged) or the creditor takes possession to affect discharge (think repossessed car).

Yes and when the credit takes possesion to affect discharge that is outside the scope of income.


Nice Try, though!

Farmer Giles, I have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, Could you explain it, step by step, in plain English?

[The Operative]

Farmer Giles, I have not the faintest clue what you are talking about, Could you explain it, step by step, in plain English?

He doesn't know English.