Can BITCOINs Defeat IRS Tax Thieves?
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:55 am
See my BITCOIN blog entry for reference. Get the pdf here. I could reprint it here but I figure you'll like the pictures there and I don't have the ambition to restyle it for this forum.
I'd like to see your reflections on the above article that touches on the subject of BITCOINs and encourages people to invest in and use them anonymously.
Usage has tax implications. However, associated near-anonymity might make assessment and collection a challenge for the IRS.
I say it's about time. I don't expect you to agree. So let's have some dialog on the subject.
I fully believe the IRS operates like a Mafia in concert with the DOJ and courts regarding implementation of direct personal income taxation. You have seen my views on this matter here at Quatloos and at my Lawmen Google Group. BAD case law has invalidated perfectly sound legal arguments against such illegal taxation, rendering them frivolous. Ordinary folks haven't the resources to fight against that Mafia or teach its agents a lesson on the subject, so the folks nearly always lose an administrative or legal tug-of-war to retain their privacy and pay only the tax for which they actually have liability.
I believe the impossiblity of administrative and legal relief and remedy for the average tax payer who does not owe tax fully justifies a resort to virtual currency the IRS cannot detect or track.
Another way of generalizing this point: People ought to find and use ways to defeat crime and criminals in government bloodlessly and with fortunes intact. I fully endorse the use of BITCOINs to that end.
As to whether I rightly interpret the Constitution on the subject of the income tax, I offer this:
I have every bit as much right to interpret it to suit me, as Obama did to interpret its natural born citizen clause to suit himself. Some juridical voodoo protects him from summary excision from government for utter lack of US citizenship. I get no such voodoo advantage, so I must find other means to enforce my view of the meaning of the apportionment clauses regarding direct taxation, and the IRS treatment of income tax as a direct tax that they may collect directly.
I see it this way:
ANONYMOUS use of BITCOINs and other virtual currencies that have no government or banking issue authority provide such a means of enforcement. No one will report BITCOIN transactions to the IRS, and the IRS seems unable to detect or track BITCOIN transactions by users who rigorously implement security and anonymity in the effort. Therefore the IRS will have no legal basis for accusing the person who receives BITCOIN virtual money of having earned income. Thus, no one need argue whether receipt of BITCOIN profits constitutes reportable income.
I know Quatloosians will help me find the flaws in my thinking. Thanks in advance. And please, PLEASE make your wisecracks pithy.
Bob Hurt
I'd like to see your reflections on the above article that touches on the subject of BITCOINs and encourages people to invest in and use them anonymously.
Usage has tax implications. However, associated near-anonymity might make assessment and collection a challenge for the IRS.
I say it's about time. I don't expect you to agree. So let's have some dialog on the subject.
I fully believe the IRS operates like a Mafia in concert with the DOJ and courts regarding implementation of direct personal income taxation. You have seen my views on this matter here at Quatloos and at my Lawmen Google Group. BAD case law has invalidated perfectly sound legal arguments against such illegal taxation, rendering them frivolous. Ordinary folks haven't the resources to fight against that Mafia or teach its agents a lesson on the subject, so the folks nearly always lose an administrative or legal tug-of-war to retain their privacy and pay only the tax for which they actually have liability.
I believe the impossiblity of administrative and legal relief and remedy for the average tax payer who does not owe tax fully justifies a resort to virtual currency the IRS cannot detect or track.
Another way of generalizing this point: People ought to find and use ways to defeat crime and criminals in government bloodlessly and with fortunes intact. I fully endorse the use of BITCOINs to that end.
As to whether I rightly interpret the Constitution on the subject of the income tax, I offer this:
I have every bit as much right to interpret it to suit me, as Obama did to interpret its natural born citizen clause to suit himself. Some juridical voodoo protects him from summary excision from government for utter lack of US citizenship. I get no such voodoo advantage, so I must find other means to enforce my view of the meaning of the apportionment clauses regarding direct taxation, and the IRS treatment of income tax as a direct tax that they may collect directly.
I see it this way:
ANONYMOUS use of BITCOINs and other virtual currencies that have no government or banking issue authority provide such a means of enforcement. No one will report BITCOIN transactions to the IRS, and the IRS seems unable to detect or track BITCOIN transactions by users who rigorously implement security and anonymity in the effort. Therefore the IRS will have no legal basis for accusing the person who receives BITCOIN virtual money of having earned income. Thus, no one need argue whether receipt of BITCOIN profits constitutes reportable income.
I know Quatloosians will help me find the flaws in my thinking. Thanks in advance. And please, PLEASE make your wisecracks pithy.
Bob Hurt