Famspear's secret information

Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Farmer Giles wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote: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.
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.
It isn't limited to securities dealers. Read the statute at http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/A/1/P/V/A/1272

Your last two sentences make no sense, demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about. There is no lien involved in the requirement to report OID as income.

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.
There are many ways to avoid income in connection with debt forgiveness, and no one's trying to hide them because they're spelled out in Section 108 of the Code: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/A/1/B/III/108

Unfortunately, none of the half-baked ideas you have posted falls within any of the exceptions in Section 108.
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.
There's probably more money to be made correcting the mess someone has made taxwise by following idiotic tax-denier ideas such as you have put forth in your incredibly opaque language (read: word salad BS). It's like the old Fram oil filter commercials: "You can pay me now or pay me later."

There are many of us here that help people eliminate or minimize paying taxes by using methods that comply with the law and that will work. What we don't do is dream up some preposterous garbage that has a 100% probability of failing, and an only slightly smaller probability of resulting in sanctions for making a patently frivolous argument.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
silversopp

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by silversopp »

Farmer Giles wrote: yet you go on to AGREE with me...with a contradiction.
That doesn't make any sense.
So yes there is always a way out. Its not a loophole, though...its called the Eternal Universe... There is no way you are going to invent an artificial system that takes in Life, The Universe, and Everything.
You're going to cheat on taxes by using the "Eternal Universe". And you're trying to prevent the tax/accounting professionals here from creating some sort of artificial life. I applaud your initiative, but I feel that you won't be successful without the Continuum Transfunctioner and 1.21 jigawatts of electricity.
"Income from any Source." Do you think it would make a difference? Why is it so crucial to restrict the concept to DERIVED?
No, it wouldn't make a difference. And there is no restriction when they used the word "derived".

Derive
1 a : to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source

And in this case, the specified source is "any source".
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 you want to live off of welfare, charity, or be homeless that's your own choice. It's the choice that David Van Pelt made. Let me know how that works out for you and why you're better off then me.
Famspear seems to agree with me
No...the only person on these forums who agrees with you is a mentally ill homeless guy who beats up his elderly mother.

Now Farmer, you never did answer my question. Why do you think that the people who follow the advice of the posters here do not run into trouble with the IRS, and why is it that people who follow the theories you're asserting end up paying fines and/or server jail time?

You've had various laws cited that show what you're talking about is illegal. You've had a number of court cases cited where people with those positions have been found guilty. Now it's your turn, show us the laws that we're violating and show us court cases where the judge has ruled against us.
silversopp

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by silversopp »

Farmer Giles wrote:why dont you take your own advice and actually read some law and cases? Go find the Browns and have a look. Its an edifying experience.
I think we're coming from completely different ends of the spectrum here. The posters here do not think that living out your life in prison at the taxpayers' expense is something to idealize. You on the other hand, appear to think that the Brown's experience is something to be proud of. We all have different values, and if you value having food and shelter provided to you by getting tossed into prison, so be it. But don't expect us to drop down to your standards - we want more out of life.
You finally made a good post. Do you know why food and shelter dont need paying? Because they already exist.
Shoplifted is a great way to get tossed in prison and achieve your dream of living like Ed and Elaine Brown.
silversopp

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by silversopp »

Farmer Giles wrote: Its a general idea and if it were something I needed the first thing I’d want is more than one qualified onion.
Image
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Famspear »

silversopp wrote:
Farmer Giles wrote:.....Famspear seems to agree with me....
No...the only person on these forums who agrees with you is a mentally ill homeless guy who beats up his elderly mother.
Earth calling Farmer Giles..... Famspear does not agree with you, Farmer Giles. Unfortunately, Famspear is too busy to post much right now. Eventually, Famspear will get around to posting what Farmer Giles refers to as the "secret information", but the information really isn't a "secret." Stay tuned, Farmer Giles.........
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Silversopp wrote:You've had a number of court cases cited where people with those positions have been found guilty. Now it's your turn, show us the laws that we're violating and show us court cases where the judge has ruled against us.

Farmer Giles wrote:...(crickets)...
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by LPC »

Farmer Giles wrote:Do you know why food and shelter dont need paying? Because they already exist. There is nothing more that can actually be done with a house but live in it, or land in OZ on top of the Wicked Witch.
I'm not sure if FG is trolling furiously or if he really is as stupid and delusional as he seems to want to appear to be, but he's finally convinced me that the difference isn't important and so he's going into my ignore file.

<plonk>
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Farmer Giles

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Farmer Giles »

Nikki wrote:Okay.

Grocer starts out with nothing.

You lend him $100,000.

He buys inventory, spending all $100,000, and sells it for $100,000.

He pays you back the $100,000.

A few simple questions:

Where does he get the money to keep the lights on in his store?
How does he buy the gasoline to drive from is home to his store?
Does the entire staff of the store work because they're on court ordered community service, or would they like to get paid, too? If so, where does the money come from to pay them?
thats just stupid. obviously all values can be financed.
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Farmer Giles wrote:thats just stupid. obviously all values can be financed.
Another cryptic sentence which means nothing in context. Let's go back to Nikki's question:
Nikki wrote:Grocer starts out with nothing.

You lend him $100,000.

He buys inventory, spending all $100,000, and sells it for $100,000.

He pays you back the $100,000.

A few simple questions:

Where does he get the money to keep the lights on in his store?
How does he buy the gasoline to drive from is home to his store?
Does the entire staff of the store work because they're on court ordered community service, or would they like to get paid, too? If so, where does the money come from to pay them?
Who is financing what? Please explain (as I have asked you repeatedly) in simple, step-by-step sentences. The reason I ask is that, at some point, your theory will violate either common sense or current federal tax law or both.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Red Cedar PM
Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:10 pm

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Red Cedar PM »

Farmer Giles wrote:
Nikki wrote:Okay.

Grocer starts out with nothing.

You lend him $100,000.

He buys inventory, spending all $100,000, and sells it for $100,000.

He pays you back the $100,000.

A few simple questions:

Where does he get the money to keep the lights on in his store?
How does he buy the gasoline to drive from is home to his store?
Does the entire staff of the store work because they're on court ordered community service, or would they like to get paid, too? If so, where does the money come from to pay them?
thats just stupid. obviously all values can be financed.
Nikki: Here is a logical scenario that shows how your proposed transaction makes zero economic sense and has no connection with reality.

Farmer: That's stupid. I have no idea how to respond so I'm just going to say something vague about financing values.
"Pride cometh before thy fall."

--Dantonio 11:03:07
Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.
Farmer Giles

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Farmer Giles »

same thing i said to nikki: all values can financed. ALL values. Your math is totally phony. I'm not only going to finance the inventory; i'm financing the total SALES. Name a number and I wil finance it. No more questions.


this thread is winding down, why don't you all do something productive like put your expert heads together and lay out a simple formula for moving values along without incurring gross income... like we already know happens every day with mortgage foreclosure. I'm tired of dealing with your circles.

I'm going to answer everyones challenge in general: THIS IS HOW SOCIAL CREDIT WORKS- everyone puts their stuff on the table, whether its money, productivity, inventory or whatever. everyone gets credit for their investment, and redeems it for the equity they want: money, groceries, etc. to date, none of you seem to be able, or willing, to show an actual tax consequence to this and ONLY this transaction.

there is no gross income to the redemption of shares. there is no gross income to the borrowing and lending of anything. there is no gross income to insurance compensation for damages (think about investment caution policies) You all feign ignorance but I don't believe it for a minute, acting like you dont understand basic English. So here's a history lesson you wont understand either-

Income Tax is a plank of the Communist Manifesto. Its job is to penalize Capitalism. Notice that all the most typical forms of economy addressed are these "items": employment, sales, profits, gains, royalties, interest and dividends. And any other structure that allows for a net increase through the accession to wealth.

And notably the system inherently excludes those transaction that produce an even-exchange. I think, I know why you hate to go for that "perfect wave", the 'even-exchange': you'd be ostracized in the profession, or suffer some kind of perceived inconvenience.

I don't care if your feelings are hurt.
Farmer Giles

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Farmer Giles »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Farmer Giles wrote:thats just stupid. obviously all values can be financed.
Another cryptic sentence which means nothing in context. Let's go back to Nikki's question:
Who is financing what? Please explain (as I have asked you repeatedly) in simple, step-by-step sentences. The reason I ask is that, at some point, your theory will violate either common sense or current federal tax law or both.[/quote]

Are mortgage foreclosures a theory? How about share redemptions?

I am financing the sales. The sales are what might otherwise generate income. As the Operative pointed out, no money will be made if we sell at the cost of the loan. And this is the goal.

Your grocery is satisfied by the loan proceeds. The customers are satisfied by the grocery receipts. And I am satisfied by getting my money back. Can you identify any gross income in this transaction?


silversopp wrote:If you want to live off of welfare, charity, or be homeless that's your own choice. It's the choice that David Van Pelt made. Let me know how that works out for you and why you're better off then me.

I hope indeed i can count on welfare and charity from others, just as they can count on me. You seem to think you can take it with you. I heard someone say once "I'm going to die a rich man". I don't think thats possible.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Cpt Banjo »

And notably the system inherently excludes those transaction that produce an even-exchange. I think, I know why you hate to go for that "perfect wave", the 'even-exchange': you'd be ostracized in the profession, or suffer some kind of perceived inconvenience.

I don't care if your feelings are hurt.
Would you care to cite the specific provisions of the law where even-exchanges (I assume you mean based upon value) escape taxation? I know of several, but they are the exception, not the rule.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Farmer Giles wrote:I am financing the sales. The sales are what might otherwise generate income. As the Operative pointed out, no money will be made if we sell at the cost of the loan. And this is the goal.

Your grocery is satisfied by the loan proceeds. The customers are satisfied by the grocery receipts. And I am satisfied by getting my money back. Can you identify any gross income in this transaction?
This transaction would never occur in the real world. No lender will make an interest-free loan to a grocer; he will charge interest, which will be gross income if paid. No grocer will charge only what's necessary to service the loan; he will charge in addition enough to make a profit or a salary (gross income) so he can eat.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Duke2Earl »

Farmer Giles wrote: I'm going to answer everyones challenge in general: THIS IS HOW SOCIAL CREDIT WORKS- everyone puts their stuff on the table, whether its money, productivity, inventory or whatever. everyone gets credit for their investment, and redeems it for the equity they want: money, groceries, etc. to date, none of you seem to be able, or willing, to show an actual tax consequence to this and ONLY this transaction.

there is no gross income to the redemption of shares. there is no gross income to the borrowing and lending of anything. there is no gross income to insurance compensation for damages (think about investment caution policies) You all feign ignorance but I don't believe it for a minute, acting like you dont understand basic English. So here's a history lesson you wont understand either-

Income Tax is a plank of the Communist Manifesto. Its job is to penalize Capitalism. Notice that all the most typical forms of economy addressed are these "items": employment, sales, profits, gains, royalties, interest and dividends. And any other structure that allows for a net increase through the accession to wealth.

And notably the system inherently excludes those transaction that produce an even-exchange. I think, I know why you hate to go for that "perfect wave", the 'even-exchange': you'd be ostracized in the profession, or suffer some kind of perceived inconvenience.

I don't care if your feelings are hurt.
As best I can tell... and it is damn hard, this foosball thinks there are no tax consequences to barter transactions. This stuff about taking out equity is both nonsense and a red herring. You get no equity in any entity by making a loan. There is no partnership. There is nothing to redeem. And there are tax consequences to interest free loans... see section 7872. But what he really seems to be talking about is barters... everybody puts something in and then takes out consideration in kind. If he thinks this is tax free... well, good luck with that.

And this income tax is communism crap... well, it simply is crap and the last resort of someone who has no argument at all.

And this "discussion" has indeed run its course. I predict that Ham of Giles will declare victory and diappear very soon.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
Farmer Giles

Re: Famspear's secret information

Post by Farmer Giles »

Cpt Banjo wrote: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/A/1/P/V/A/1272

There are many ways to avoid income in connection with debt forgiveness, and no one's trying to hide them because they're spelled out in Section 108 of the Code: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/A/1/B/III/108

so i open the cite and whats the first thing i see, despite the lack of a B.S. after my name, (most of you could be a B.B.S.) ...

exceptions:
(C) Short-term obligations
Any debt instrument which has a fixed maturity date not more
than 1 year from the date of issue.

How about a bond without a maturity date? How about "payable on demand"? How about whatever, because you can try to derail the conversation to the minutae of a tax code, and all the imaginary "what ifs" you can dream or invent, and it still doesnt matter. Want to know what matters?

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.
you can't take it with you.