yet you go on to AGREE with me...with a contradiction.Cpt Banjo wrote:Not even close.Farmer Giles wrote: Everyone on the board has so far agreed with me:
if there is EVEN ONE instance then ALL trade or business can be modeled on that structure. there are MORE than one of these instances, and the odds overall in a world of otherwise equal opportunites are against the ONLY one that is the subject of "gross income".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..Farmer Giles wrote:There is always a taxless alternative.
So yes there is always a way out. Its not a loophole, though...its called the Eternal Universe. Everything else a very small mind hates to conceive. A lot of people get hung up on images and assumptions and it is my personal hobby to burst bubbles. There is no way you are going to invent an artificial system that takes in Life, The Universe, and Everything.
apparently I'm using them well enough if an increase in wealth does not result in income, since thats MY STATED GOAL. I know, the accountants say: "no, you have to have income!"...i hear desperation. Next comes the 'Arguement Clinic': "no, you cant do that". I ALREADY DID. Ive yet to see even one poster simply respond with the tax consequences of a given transaction. Not the one YOU want ME to make, the one I have ALREADY DONE. So far, its Quatloos, zero. I can only surmise that there is no tax liability to spending groceries, which is what i thought.You are misusing accounting terms. Equity contributions by an owner in a company increase stockholders' equity but do not result in income.Farmer Giles wrote:That the original equity is routinely discounted.
Like, "equity contributions by an owner of personal net worth increase the stakeholders' equity but do not result in income." yeah, that works for me. Now I have something to bond. Or redeem.
Yes, those words have different meanings.Farmer Giles wrote:That accession is different from succession.
So tell us all about "Succession to Wealth, Fully Realized". And tell us why the law is SO SPECIFIC to use this word inevery enabling clause. Based on your understanding of the rules and definitions, what would be different if the law read instead:
"Income from any Source." Do you think it would make a difference? Why is it so crucial to restrict the concept to DERIVED?
Not that I have any hope you'd actually respond to to the matter at hand. I far more expect to see a diversion, a strawman, ANYTHING other than simply respond to a question. Thats not the Law School Way.
Why the hell do i care about taxable income if I haven’t got any? You want like the so many-headed to somehow FORCE, or maybe trick, me into receiving “gross income”. F* Gross Income!!!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.Farmer Giles wrote: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.
You’re just mad because it puts people like you out of business, and you would have to actually do something productive, like farmwork. Which leaves less room for Profit by the Exploitation of Others.this stuff about bonding the grocery and crediting the owners is pure gibberish.
I think that only applies to certain securities dealers. Post the cite and lets have a look at it. Maybe the solution is to keep the lien static and avoid the impression of income. In fact I dont need to buy any bonds at all, I need to redeem, spend, and credit and debit them.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.
Thanks for trying to obfusticate. Famspear seems to agree with me (tho' he might not care for the reference) so if you bothered to read his responses it was clear there is at least one way for credit/default to come out tax-free. I guess you are obliquely referring to the “windfall deficiencies” from personal loan forgiveness. It’s off topic for now, but if the past is any experience you people are probably concealing the remedy there as well. Nonetheless it’s a piss-poor attempt at trying to frighten off anyone loking for remedy.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.
Another poster shows his color. I expect no different, but it’s telling how much effort you people make just to keep the lid on a boiling pot. Amazing it never occured to you that there is actually more money to be made in freeing people than enslaving them. You lay many burdens on men’s shoulders, but lift not a finger to remove them.