One step @ a time (Marc Stevens)

[Kestrel]

Does Red Paperclip Man have some sort of taxable gain, for each transaction, since it seems that he swapped something he had for something of greater value? I mean he has admitted he began with a little something and now has a house. Just sayin'.........

IRS Publication 544

Capital Assets Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure, or investment is a capital asset. The following items are examples of capital assets.

Stocks and bonds.
A home owned and occupied by you and your family.
Timber grown on your home property or investment property, even if you make casual sales of the timber.
Household furnishings.
A car used for pleasure or commuting.
Coin or stamp collections.
Gems and jewelry.
Gold, silver, and other metals.
And red paperclips acquired to exchange for any of the above

Gains on exchanges of capital assets are "Taxable Income." Gains on capital assets held less than one year are taxed at Ordinary Income rates, instead of favorable Capital Gains rates. You can exclude gain on the sale of your home if you've lived there for two years, but most people don't live in Red Paperclips.

Too bad for Mr. Red Paperclip Man. His unrecognized gain IS recognized by the IRS!!!

[Edited because my brain was stuck in the 1990s when I first typed this post. I think I was watching an old movie or something...]

[Arthur Rubin]

And Red Paperclip Man does have to pay property tax on his house.

Can I trade a red paperclip for a red crayon?

[iplawyer]

You can roll-forward the gain on the sale of your home when purchasing another home, but most people don't live in Red Paperclips.

Really? When did the law change back?

[Kestrel]

You can roll-forward the gain on the sale of your home when purchasing another home, but most people don't live in Red Paperclips.

Really? When did the law change back?

I should know better than to post anything at that time of night. You're right. I was overtired and my brain fixated on the rules which applied last time I moved. Thx.

But that makes the situation even worse for the paperclip man....

[Kestrel]

The Red Paper Clip was a blog started by a Canadian blogger, and got a lot of attention from all kinds of people. One thing Stevens seems to forget is that MacDonald traveled all over the US and Canada to do his swaps, meaning that he must have spent quite a lot on travel.

US and Canada..... Canadian capital gains tax laws.....

Is there a Canadian CA in this forum?

[Arthur Rubin]

The Red Paper Clip was a blog started by a Canadian blogger, and got a lot of attention from all kinds of people. One thing Stevens seems to forget is that MacDonald traveled all over the US and Canada to do his swaps, meaning that he must have spent quite a lot on travel.

US and Canada..... Canadian capital gains tax laws.....

Is there a Canadian CA in this forum?

Canada has no capital gains on the sale of your principle residence. Unlimited exclusion.

[Kestrel]

Canada has no capital gains on the sale of your principle residence. Unlimited exclusion.

OK, but Mr. Paperclip Man didn't sell or barter away a house. He bartered to get one. And there was nothing in the interim trades that could have qualified as a residence.

Does Canada assess capital gains taxes on the sale or exchange of other assets?

[Arthur Rubin]

Canada has no capital gains on the sale of your principle residence. Unlimited exclusion.

OK, but Mr. Paperclip Man didn't sell or barter away a house. He bartered to get one. And there was nothing in the interim trades that could have qualified as a residence.

Does Canada assess capital gains taxes on the sale or exchange of other assets?

Yes. The regulations on barter aren't as clear as the US regulations, but it's still taxable.

[wserra]

A joke I've posted here before:

A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer set out to prove the proposition that all odd numbers are prime (which is, of course, absurd). The mathematician's proof: 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime, 5 is odd and prime, 7 is odd and prime; therefore, by induction, all odd numbers are prime. The physicist's proof: 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime, 5 is odd and prime, 7 is odd and prime, 9 . . . is an experimental error. The engineer's proof: 1 is odd and prime, 3 is odd and prime, 5 is odd and prime, 7 is odd and prime, 9 is odd and prime, 11 is odd and prime, 13 is odd and prime . . . .

Stevens appears to be the engineer. We have discussed the recording of the Tax Court pretrial conference in which Stevens crows about how the DOJ lawyer can't name the witnesses she will call to prove that his "client" is a "taxpayer". That was over eight months ago; I note that Stevens has never either identified the client or posted the order showing how his "argument" turned out. That is likely because it turned out similarly to the one he did identify, in which the District Court termed his stuff "sophistry", and the Circuit called it "patently frivolous" and sanctioned his "client" $6,000.

So why is he the engineer? Because he does it again. In his latest blog post, he relates (and links to a recording of) a conference with a Maryland state revenue agent in which (as he puts it) "the agent admit(s) she's not qualified to make legal determinations my client is a taxpayer with taxable income". Well, of course not, Marc. Tribunals make "legal determinations", not agents/witnesses. Stevens has in other words learned nothing from the beatings his previous "clients" suffered as a result of this bullshit. He continues that "a tax assessment is like a traffic ticket, the IRS/tax agent is the cop making the legal determinations". Marc, I hate to break it to you, but cops don't make "legal determinations" either. Cops say, "I observed Stevens' buddy here drive past me at a speed I (or my radar gun) determined to be 85 MPH". The tribunal then decides whether the state has proven that your buddy was speeding. This stuff is not rocket science.

So how did it go with the Maryland proceeding? "Despite her admission, under oath, the hearing officer refuses to strike her testimony and abate her assessments." Well, Marc, if that's the final determination, doesn't it mean you lose? Again?

[wserra]

Off we go again - Marc Stevens against the criminal state. As we've seen, the criminal state has won every previous round. Maybe this one will be different.

A New Hampshire man named Ian Freeman (whom Stevens, for unknown reasons, also calls "Ian Bernard" in court papers) got 90 days in the Keene County pen for obstructing governmental administration. Stevens brought a habeas in his own name to spring him. On September 19, the Keene County judge held a conference on the matter. Stevens was present by telephone from his home in Arizona, and recorded the conversation. As soon as Stevens starts in with his "states are fictions, do you mean the body politic" BS, the judge cuts him off. Stevens writes about it here, and links to the recording. The first 1.5 minutes of the recording. A couple of comments make fun of the judge, and ask where the rest of the recording is; Stevens never responds.

A day or two later, Stevens blogs the time and place of the writ hearing - September 23, courthouse. He asks people to come to show support. He puffs self-importantly about how, since he has no allegiance to the state, he can ask "probing questions such as what is meant by 'STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'". Come hear the master at work.

Days of nothing go by. Weeks of nothing go by. Finally, one day last week, in the middle of yet another post about he pwned a lawyer, Stevens casually drops that, in the habeas proceeding, he was "stricken as a plaintiff and not permitted to help Ian".

Lost again, eh, Marc? Why does anybody listen to this guy?

[notorial dissent]

Why does anybody listen to this guy?

They're obviously dumber than he is!!!! My best guess, and seems borne out by fact.

So at this point it is what so far, Stevens 0 / criminal state all?? You know, I almost see a pattern emerging there, kinda sorta. And he wonders why we don't take him seriously.

[add2cart]

And what I want to know is: do they really really believe all this BS they spew? If I check the record of lots of sovruns in my neck of the woods, NONE of them ever win. I know the goal is to tie up the courts and harass the poor defendants, but can they possibly believe they have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing?

It's like me going outside and saying "I am going to stand here and beat my head against my house, and when I'm done it will be painted a new color". Not gonna happen. And neither are they.

I am really intrigued with how stupid and pompous they are at the same time. They all think they are master drafstmen, and well, I'll stop here and wait for answers.

[LPC]

Why does anybody listen to this guy?

You know, it's possible that you and I together make up about 40% of his audience.

Except that I don't really listen to him, which means that there is a half a person somewhere out there listening to him to make the percentages come out right.

[Dezcad]

A New Hampshire man named Ian Freeman (whom Stevens, for unknown reasons, also calls "Ian Bernard" in court papers) got 90 days in the Keene County pen for obstructing governmental administration.

Ian Freeman's birth name is Ian Bernard. He goes by Ian Freeman now. He is behind Free Talk Live radio show and [url=http://freekeene.com/]:

Ian
A Florida native who started in radio at 17, Ian made the move to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project in 2006. By day he is the affiliate relations department for Free Talk Live. He's also a blogger at FreeKeene.com and the Program Director of the Liberty Radio Network. As a liberty activist who advocates and performs civil disobedience and noncooperation, he is also on the board of directors of the Civil Disobedience Evolution Fund. Ian appreciates his influences in the radio industry. To give credit where credit is due, special recognition goes out to Bob Garrett, Lionel, The Love Doctors, Phil Hendrie, Harry Browne, and Dan and Scott.

[Gregg]

Why does anybody listen to this guy?

You know, it's possible that you and I together make up about 40% of his audience.

Except that I don't really listen to him, which means that there is a half a person somewhere out there listening to him to make the percentages come out right.

I've half a mind to whap him in the head with something heavy on general principles, and so the gods of mathematics are pleased.

[wserra]

Stevens continues his tired routine of getting on the telephone with the IRS, asking nonsense questions ("Do you have any witnesses that my client is a taxpayer?" "Do you consider yourself an expert in Constitutional law?"), then claiming victory when the agent doesn't respond to loaded questions. Of course, most of the time Stevens doesn't tell anyone what happens to his poor "clients"; when we find out anyway - as in the two cases above and in this related thread - it turns out that, thanks to Stevens, they got f*cked.

Perhaps someone in the IRS could do something to end the stupidity parade. Tell people not to get involved in dumbass Q&As. All they need to say to a Marc Stevens, once he starts asking his questions, is "Do you have any facts to present?" If he persists, HANG UP. There isn't a judge in the world who would hold that Stevens in entitled to play stupid word games.

[LPC]

Stevens continues his tired routine of getting on the telephone with the IRS, asking nonsense questions ("Do you have any witnesses that my client is a taxpayer?" "Do you consider yourself an expert in Constitutional law?"), then claiming victory when the agent doesn't respond to loaded questions.

He claims victory even when the agent responds sensibly. For example:

When asked if she “is an expert on the interpretation and application of the constitution and federal law“, she non-responsively answers by stating she is "following her directive, IRN’s, MIN’s, and instructions per her job that she has be doing for over 30 years".

Her answer was entirely responsive, of course, and his failure to recognize that demonstrates his idiocy.

[JamesVincent]

Stevens continues his tired routine of getting on the telephone with the IRS, asking nonsense questions ("Do you have any witnesses that my client is a taxpayer?" "Do you consider yourself an expert in Constitutional law?"), then claiming victory when the agent doesn't respond to loaded questions.

He claims victory even when the agent responds sensibly. For example:

When asked if she “is an expert on the interpretation and application of the constitution and federal law“, she non-responsively answers by stating she is "following her directive, IRN’s, MIN’s, and instructions per her job that she has be doing for over 30 years".

Her answer was entirely responsive, of course, and his failure to recognize that demonstrates his idiocy.

What I dont get is why does it matter whether or not the IRS person conducting the interview is an expert on Constitutional Law? There are very few acknowledged "experts" in that field in this country at any one time and their usually acknowledged by being appointed to sit in the Supreme Court, or their the chair at a university teaching law. The poor person that idiots like this encounter are trained to deal with very specific sections of code and law dealing with income tax and that is all they do so that is what they are experts in. And the ones doing the phone interviews dont even necessarily need to be experts in that, my understanding is that they are trying to get information together to try to come to some sort of understanding so that the tax issues can be settled in a civilized manner without the government bringing out the 30# sledgehammer and playing whack-a-mole on the non-taxpayer's assets.

[notorial dissent]

Stevens continues his tired routine of getting on the telephone with the IRS, asking nonsense questions ("Do you have any witnesses that my client is a taxpayer?" "Do you consider yourself an expert in Constitutional law?"), then claiming victory when the agent doesn't respond to loaded questions.

He claims victory even when the agent responds sensibly. For example:

When asked if she “is an expert on the interpretation and application of the constitution and federal law“, she non-responsively answers by stating she is "following her directive, IRN’s, MIN’s, and instructions per her job that she has be doing for over 30 years".

Her answer was entirely responsive, of course, and his failure to recognize that demonstrates his idiocy.

More to the point, his WILLFUL failure to recognize, as in acknowledge, the response. It wouldn't really matter what the agent's reply was, it wouldn't have been satisfactory since it didn't agree with his interpretation of reality. He isn't interested in anything other than the sound of his own voice, and the self inflation of his already overblown ego.

[wserra]

What I dont get is why does it matter whether or not the IRS person conducting the interview is an expert on Constitutional Law?

But I think you do get it, James. It doesn't matter. She isn't required to be. It doesn't matter whether the IRS has a witness that Stevens' "client" is a taxpayer. They're not required to have one (and the concept makes no sense anyway). Stevens might as well ask if the IRS has photographs of his "client" opening the notice of deficiency. The point isn't to establish any issues of proof. The point is to impress the rubes (even if, as Dan says, there may be only six rubes to begin with).