Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by LPC »

Not sure why it seems to have taken so long, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Robert Kahre (et al.) for using gold coins to evade payroll taxes. United States v. Robert David Kahre et al., Nos. 09-10471, 09-10528, 09-10529 (9th Cir. 12/5/2013) (per curiam; for publication).

And there's a special guest appearance by von Nuthaus. (See footnote 13.)

There have been many threads about Kahre over the years, and I prefer to attach appeal decisions to threads about the trial or conviction, but in this case they seem old or largely off-topic, and so I'm starting a new one. I won't object if someone decides it would be better to merge this thread with an older one.

The following is the only section of the opinion likely to be of interest to this forum:
9th Circuit wrote:B. The District Court's Determination of Tax Valuation Based on the Fair Market Value of the Gold and Silver Coins

Appellants contend that the district court erred in denying their motions to dismiss the indictments because they did not know that their use of gold and silver coins for payroll payments was illegal under the tax laws. Appellants specifically maintain that the district court's tax valuation predicated on the fair market value of the gold and silver coins unfairly imputed criminal intent to their unknowing actions.

"The element of wilfulness cannot obtain in a criminal tax evasion case unless the law clearly prohibited the conduct alleged in the indictment." George, 420 F.3d at 995 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "Without sufficient clarity in the law, taxpayers lack the fair notice demanded by due process so that they may conform their conduct to the law." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "However, a lack of prior appellate rulings on the topic does not render the law vague, nor does a lack of previously litigated fact patterns deprive taxpayers of fair notice." Id. at 995-96 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "Thus, criminal prosecution is permissible when it is clear beyond any doubt that the conduct is illegal under established principles of tax law." Id. at 996 (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellants' argument is unpersuasive, as we have expressly held that coins are taxable as property when their fair market value exceeds their face value. In Cordner v. United States, 671 F.2d 367 (9th Cir. 1982), the appellants received $20 Double Eagle gold coins as corporate dividends. See id. at 368. After the appellants reported the dividends at the coins' face value, the IRS charged the appellants with a taxable dividend equivalent to the coins' fair market value. See id. We held that the IRS correctly assessed the coins as property based on their fair market value:
We have no difficulty in holding that the gold coins here, though legal tender and hence money for some purposes, are also property to be taxed at fair market value because they have been withdrawn from circulation and have numismatic worth. When legal tender, by reason of its value to collectors or the intrinsic worth of its contents, has a fair market value in excess of its face value or tender, then it should be deemed property other than money . . .
Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In Cal. Fed. Life Ins. Co. v. Comm'r, 680 F.2d 85 (9th Cir. 1982), the appellant exchanged Swiss francs for $20 gold coins, and claimed a capital loss premised on the coins' face value. See id. at 86. We affirmed the tax court's determination that the gold coins were taxable as property based on their fair market value. See id. We held that usage of the term "money" in I.R.C. § 1001(b) required a realistic assessment of the coins as property:
Section 1001(b) is clearly intended to permit a realistic assessment of the economic gain or loss attending a sale or exchange. That purpose would be frustrated by an interpretation that compelled gold coins to be treated at a fraction of their true value. We therefore conclude that money in § 1001(b) refers to the currently circulating medium of exchange, while property includes coins that have, by reason of their value to collectors or the intrinsic worth of their contents, a fair market value in excess of their face value. Because the key element is the excess of market over face value, it is immaterial that such coins may be legal tender at their face value.
Id. (footnote reference and internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellants attempt to distinguish Cordner and Cal. Fed. Life Ins. Co. because those cases involved coins that had been withdrawn from circulation. However, in Cal. Fed. Life Ins. Co., we declined to recognize this very distinction because we "agree[ed] with the Tax Court's conclusion that the technical status of the coins as legal tender is immaterial . . ." Cal. Fed. Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d at 86 n.3 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, we emphasized that "ecause the key element is the excess of market over face value, it is immaterial that such coins may be legal tender at their face value. . . ." Id. at 86 (footnote reference omitted).

Other courts have held that coins in circulation may be assessed at their fair market value. In Joslin v. United States, 666 F.2d 1306 (10th Cir. 1981), the Tenth Circuit considered whether the taxpayer should have reported payments in silver dollars at their numismatic value. See id. In that case, an attorney received 200 silver dollars for legal services, and reported the income as $200, instead of the fair market value of $1,000. See id. at 1306-07. The Tenth Circuit observed that "f a taxpayer receives property other than cash as compensation, the taxpayer's income is measured by the property's fair market value." Id. at 1307 (citation omitted). Based on general tax principles, the Tenth Circuit held:
Unquestionably, a silver dollar has both a face value and a separate value reflecting the coin's numismatic worth. To this extent a silver dollar combines the characteristics of cash and property. When a taxpayer bargains for and benefits from the higher market value of silver coins, he or she must include this amount in income. That silver dollars are designated legal tender with a nominal value of one dollar acceptable at the United States Treasury to discharge one dollar of debt, or exchangeable for a one dollar Federal Reserve note, does not require a different result. . . .
Id. (citations and footnote reference omitted).

In Stoecklin v. Comm'r, 865 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit reached a similar conclusion. In that case, the appellant, who was the trustee of an equity trust, formed a corporation for his accounting practice, of which he was the only shareholder and employee. See id. at 1222-23. The corporation paid the appellant's trust 250 silver dollars per month for the appellant's services. See id. at 1223. Although the corporation deducted the coins' fair market value as expenses, the appellant only reported the face value of the coins as income. See id. The IRS subsequently sought a deficiency premised on the fair market value of the coins. See id. Applying the precepts developed in Cordner and Joslin, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the appellant's argument that coins still in circulation were assessed at face value, and held that the IRS properly sought a deficiency premised on the fair market value of the coins. See id. at 1225; see also Lary v. Comm'r, 842 F.2d 296, 299 (11th Cir. 1988) ("Where coins have a fair market value in excess of their face value, their potential use as legal tender is irrelevant. . . .") (citation omitted).[9],[10]

Based on these longstanding and consistent precedent, we conclude that Appellants had ample notice that their payroll scheme, premised on the exchange of gold and silver coins for envelopes of cash, triggered the requirement to remit payroll taxes to the IRS and to report the payments as income based on the fair market value of the coins. See George, 420 F.3d at 995-96.[11]

We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, Pub. L. No. 99-185, 99 Stat. 1177, overruled prior legal precedent that coins are assessed at fair market value. Although the Gold Bullion Coin Act provides the Secretary of the Treasury with the authority to mint gold and silver coins for circulation, see 31 U.S.C. § 5112(a)(7)-(11) (2010),[12] there is no statutory language reflecting Congressional intent to overrule prior legal precedent or to establish the taxable value of the coins as their face value. See id.; see also Sklar v. Comm'r, 549 F.3d 1252, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008) (observing that if Congress intended to overrule judicial precedent concerning tax laws, "it would have expressed its intention more clearly") (citation omitted). Further, the legislative history of the Act reflects, if anything, Congressional intent that gold coins retain their fair market value. See 131 Cong. Rec. H10528-05, 1985 WL 721189 (Cong. Rec. Dec. 2, 1985) (statement of Rep. Annunzio) ("The gold coins will be sold at the market price of gold plus a small charge for minting, marketing and distribution, beginning October 1, 1986. . . ."); see also id. (statement of Rep. Lewis) ("The actual denomination of these new coins will be obvious to everyone-1 troy ounce, half-ounce, quarter-ounce, and tenth-ounce. Their value will be determined by the free market, just as the values of all other goods and services are determined."). The legislative record contains no linguistic or historical support for Appellants' contention that the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 overruled prior legal precedent formulating tax assessments for gold and silver coins.

Appellants' reliance on 31 U.S.C. § 5118(a) and (d) in support of their argument that the district court's ruling violated their right to contract is similarly misplaced. According to Appellants, § 5118 legalizes contracts like theirs, that contain "gold clauses."

Section 5118 provides in relevant part:
(a) In this section -- (1) gold clause means a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in -- (A) gold; (B) a particular United States coin or currency; or (C) United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency.

. . .

(d)(1) In this subsection, obligation means any obligation (except United States currency) payable in United States money. (2) An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. This paragraph does not apply to an obligation issued after October 27, 1977.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Assuming arguendo that § 5118 does "legalize" contracts containing gold clauses, it would be of no help to Appellants, because Appellants' schemes did not implicate gold clause contracts as defined in § 5118. See § 5118(a)(1) (defining "gold clause" as an obligation purporting to give the obligee the right to demand payment in, among other things, gold); see also 60 Am.Jur.2d Payments § 26 (2012) ("A gold clause is a provision in or related to an obligation alleging to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold, a particular United States coin or currency, or United States money measured in gold or a particular United States coin or currency. An obligation issued containing a gold clause or governed by a gold clause is discharged on payment (dollar for dollar) in United States coin or currency that is legal tender at the time of payment. . . .") (footnote references and internal quotation marks omitted). Rather than utilizing a gold clause, i.e., a clause designed to give employees a right to demand payment in gold, Appellants evaded income and payroll tax obligations by requiring employees to exchange gold and silver coins for cash in order to receive their weekly wages. This practice turned the gold clause standard on its head. Rather than the obligee (the employee) demanding payment in gold from the obligor (Kahre), the obligor (Kahre) required the obligee (the employee) to accept payment in gold that would then be repaid with cash. Nothing in 31 U.S.C. § 5118 or cases interpreting that statute validates Kahre's practice.

Notably, if an employee retained a gold or silver coin in lieu of cash, the fair market value of the coin, as opposed to its face value, was deducted from the employee's wages. The evidence at trial also established that the Kahres did not participate in the gold and silver coin exchange required of Kahre's employees, a clear indication of the illegitimacy of the practice. Given the inapplicability of § 5118 to Kahre's scheme, Appellants' argument regarding their right to contract pursuant to that section is unpersuasive.

In the alternative, Appellants maintain that the Department of Justice and the IRS lack authority to value coinage. In essence, Appellants erroneously assume that the IRS thwarted Congress' monetary powers, including the valuation of money. The flaw in Appellants' assumption is that the IRS did not establish valuation of coinage as a matter of monetary policy. Rather, the IRS interpreted and applied the tax code defining the taxable value of gold and silver coins as property when used as compensation for services rendered. The IRS's actions in no way violated the separation of powers, as the IRS is "the authority on the interpretation and application of the Internal Revenue Code . . ." Tualatin Valley Builders Supply, Inc. v. United States, 522 F.3d 937, 942 (9th Cir. 2008); see also 26 U.S.C. § 7805(a) (delegating authority concerning the Internal Revenue Code).

Appellants again urge application of the rule of lenity to reverse their convictions, pointing to the "uncertainty" of their tax obligations. "The rule of lenity only applies, however, where there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the language and structure of the statute, such that even after a court has seized every thing from which aid can be derived, it is still left with an ambiguous statute. . . ." United States v. Carona, 660 F.3d 360, 369 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). "Because the meaning of language is inherently contextual, we have declined to deem a statute ambiguous for purposes of lenity merely because it was possible to articulate a construction more narrow than that urged by the government. . . ." Id. (citation and alteration omitted) (emphasis in the original).

As discussed, several federal courts, as well as the Tax Court, have held that gold and silver coins are assessed at their fair market value when used for compensation for services rendered. The applicable tax laws and corresponding regulations also establish that, when property is used as compensation, it is assessed at fair market value. See 26 U.S.C. § 61(a)(1) (defining gross income as including "[c]ompensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items . . ."); 26 C.F.R. § 1.61-2(d)(1) ("f services are paid for in property, the fair market value of the property taken in payment must be included in income as compensation. . . ."). Additionally, Appellants were charged with violating 26 U.S.C. § 7202, with the operative Indictment alleging that Appellants "willfully fail[ed] to collect or truthfully account for and pay over such tax . . ." (emphasis added). Inclusion of a scienter requirement "mitigates a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed." United States v. Guo, 634 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations, alteration, and internal quotation marks omitted).[13]

We hold that the district court correctly determined that gold and silver coins used to pay wages were properly assessed at their fair market value, and that Appellants had sufficient notice that their conduct was illegal under the tax laws.


These are the relevant footnotes:
[9] Appellants contend that gold and silver coins are statutorily valued at face value. However, this appeal does not really concern the statutory value of gold and silver coins when utilized as legal tender. See Cordner, 671 F.2d at 368; Stoecklin, 865 F.2d at 1225. Instead, this appeal addresses Appellants' payment of wages in gold and silver coins in a scheme to avoid payroll taxes, as evidenced by the facts that Kahre's employees were required to immediately return the coins for cash and, that if an employee retained the coins, his wages were reduced by the fair market value of the coins.

[10] The Tax Court has also opined that coins are taxed as property at fair market value when used as compensation for services or goods. See Smith v. Comm'r, T.C.Memo. 1998-148, 1998 WL 191835, at *3 (U.S. Tax Ct. 1998) ("When the fair market value of legal tender exceeds its face value, such legal tender is property other than money.") (citations omitted).

[11] In their request for judicial notice, Appellants proffer a memorandum from IRS Senior Counsel Mark Howard as confirmation that the IRS assesses coins at face value, and that Appellants' payments in gold and silver coins were consistent with IRS policy. However, the referenced memorandum primarily analyzed whether a taxpayer could pay a tax bill with gold and silver coins at face value. Citing Joslin, Cordner, and Cal. Fed. Life Ins. Co., the memorandum opined that "the taxpayer may have taken his pay out of the business in gold and silver coins and reported only the face value of the coins as income. We note that others have tried such an approach in the past. In each of these cases, the courts required the taxpayers to recognize income based on the market value and not on the face value of the coins. This case may provide evidence of some sort of ongoing scheme . . ." The memorandum does not support Appellants' argument that their payroll payments were consistent with IRS policy. See Consolidated Appellants' Request to Take Judicial Notice of Government Records and Facts Contained Therein That Can Be Accurately and Readily Determined, March 5, 2012, Exh. 1, at 2, 5, Case No. 09-10471, Docket No. 70.

[12] The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 is currently codified at 31 U.S.C. § 5112 (2010).

[13] Appellants posit that the government's confusion concerning the valuation of gold and silver coins demonstrates that the law is unsettled. In support of the premise that the government is in fact confused, they point to the indictment in United States v. von Nothaus, Case No. 5:09-27 (W.D. N.C.) (von NotHaous Indictment). Appellants assert that governmental confusion is evidenced by the allegation in the von Nothaus Indictment that coins constitute United States currency, rather than property. However, von Nothaus involved the creation and promotion of a private coin as competing currency, and not violations of the tax code through the use of wage payments in gold and silver coins to avoid paying payroll taxes. As in this case, the legal analysis turned on the manner in which the coins were used.
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.
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by fortinbras »

Perhaps the crucial element was in footnote 9:
Kahre's employees were required to immediately return the coins for cash and, that if an employee retained the coins, his wages were reduced by the fair market value of the coins.
So the silver/gold collectors coins served a very temporary and ritualistic purpose: The employees were give the silver coins ... but just long enough for employer and employee to write down for the record the face value of those coins. And then the employees would return the coins to the employer and receive a much larger number of FRNs that represented (a) something closer to the numismatic market value of the coins (far above face value) and (b) something much closer to normal modern wages. The silver coins evidently were recycled this way every payday and never left the store. This little ceremony demonstrated the cynicism and falsity of Kahre's argument.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by notorial dissent »

It certainly demonstrates that Kahre was trying(not very well) to game the system, and lost, and that contrary to what he was trying to put forward, and did in fact know what the true value of the coins was and that he was fully intent on cheating on his taxes.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Kestrel
Endangerer of Stupid Species
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Kestrel »

It certainly explains why no one went after him for violating the minimum wage laws.

His workers still walked out the door with their full pay in negotiable US currency, even though he reported that he only paid them what would have amounted to $1 an hour or less.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by notorial dissent »

I hate to admit it, but I hadn't thought about it at the time, and whoever was writing up the incidents just sort of glossed over, as in completely left it out, but I think that was a rather significant detail in the scam when it comes right down to it, and certainly should have been made a major point of the prosecution towards willfulness, and certainly blows the we didn't know we were doing anything wrong story right out of the water.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 3144
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:50 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by fortinbras »

Maybe the US Attorney should consider charging a violation of the minimum wage laws, taking Kahre's tax papers seriously as proof, and then forcing Kahre to admit the con in order to get out of one charge (and into another).
AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1591
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by AndyK »

It would be interesting to go over Kahre's general ledger to dig out his accounting for:

1 - the initial purchase and regular disbursement and repurchase of the coins

2 - the costs associated with employee salaries

In theory, there should be agreement between what he booked as employee pay (costs related to opertions) and what the epmloyees received.

There could be a whole basket of new problems there.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Arthur Rubin »

Unfortunately, there is no legal basis for prosecution on the basis that K violated either tax law or the minimum wage law, except for a potential conspiracy charge.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Famspear »

Arthur Rubin wrote:Unfortunately, there is no legal basis for prosecution on the basis that K violated either tax law or the minimum wage law, except for a potential conspiracy charge.
This is an old thread, but I'm bringing it back up because I don't understand the logic behind the comment quoted above. According to the text of the Court of Appeals decision cited above, Robert Kahre was found guilty of:

x One count of conspiracy under 18 USC 371;

x Two counts of attempting to interfere with administration of the internal revenue laws, under 26 USC 7212(a);

x Forty-eight counts of failure to pay employment taxes, under 26 USC 7202;

x Four counts of tax evasion under 26 USC 7201;

x One count of wire fraud under 18 USC 1343.

He failed to withhold federal taxes from his employees' pay -- employees that he fraudulently treated as "independent contractors."

His scheme was based in part on the dumb-as-dirt idea that where the fair market value of gold coins exceeded their face value, the amount of income realized by the person who "received" the coins would somehow be only the lower face value, despite the fact that the courts had already ruled otherwise in case after case.

He also espoused the idiotic argument that because the gold coins were legal tender, the amount of income for federal income tax purposes was somehow limited to the face amount of the coins. Of course, the fact that the coins were legal tender was irrelevant, as the Court noted.

He also tried to argue that because the gold coins were still in circulation, the income amount should be limited to the face amount of the coins -- again, a legally irrelevant factor.

Further, he didn't even really pay many or most of the employees in gold coins, anyway. He gave them gold coins and required that they immediately give the gold coins back to him, whereupon he gave the employees envelopes of regular cash, in amounts equal to the fair market value of the gold coins given back to him. To the extent that an employee did not return some of the gold coins to him, he reduced the disbursement of cash that he would otherwise have given to that employee.

And, he claimed to believe that all this rigamarole would somehow legally absolve him of the obligation to withhold Federal taxes.

:roll:

Duhhhhhhh......

His convictions on all these counts were upheld on appeal: United States v. Kahre, 737 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

Mr. Kahre was sentenced to 15 years and 10 months in Federal prison. Currently, 54 year old Robert David Kahre is inmate # 40159-048 in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and his projected release date is August 31, 2023.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Number Six
Hereditary Margrave of Mooloosia
Posts: 1232
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Connecticut, "The Constitution State"

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Number Six »

Gary North mentioned it in an article today: https://www.garynorth.com/public/18383.cfm

Jacob Hornberger's article was referenced: https://www.fff.org/2013/12/09/the-u-s- ... f-justice/

That's what you get when there is little in the way of back and forth rigorous and rational debate; the assumption that the ebil gubermint is at fault.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Famspear »

Kahre is still scheduled for release on August 31, 2023.

He is a guest of the Federal Correctional Institution at Herlong, California.

"Hey, have you been HERE LONG at Herlong?"
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Famspear »

From the Gary North article linked above:
If the federal government makes gold and silver coins that are legal tender, then why punish those who use them at face value? So which standard are we to follow? For that matter, why are there two different standards in the first place?
Well, we actually have more than two different standards, Mr. North. We have thousands of standards that apply to thousands of different situations. The question you should be asking is: Why do we have two different standards that apply to the same thing with respect to Kahre? And, the answer of course, is that we DON'T.

It would help, Mr. North, if you actually understood the law on legal tender and the law on Federal income taxation. Those are two different laws, with two different purposes. That's the kind of thing that generally results in "two different standards." Read (or re-read) the Court decision, Mr. North. Enlighten yourself. Learn something.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by notorial dissent »

If you want to insist on using the coins at legal tender value fine, but then you need to give your employees the right number of coins to cover what they are legally owed. Now the fact that the coins are worth so many times more than what they are worth is your problem then, and you lose money, and they end up with additional income tax to pay. Not really a good solution. Which of course was the scam he was trying to pull. I will at least give him points for NOT trying to cheat his employees. Still a rather simple minded crook.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Number Six
Hereditary Margrave of Mooloosia
Posts: 1232
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Connecticut, "The Constitution State"

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Number Six »

And some good points on taxing gold profits, but some people on the site don't think the government is interested or has the business rigor to audit or call people to task for taxes on precious metals:

"Is it likely that a large tax would be imposed after a significant rise in the price of the metals?"

"More likely the opposite -- less money to spend."

"nrm, the last time I cashed in my gold holdings was in 2011, and at that time capital gains taxes on gold was 28%. My personal view is the government will do whatever it wants when desperate for revenues, and could very well implement a gold windfall tax just as it has on oil (companies) when oil sky-rocketed.

"I re-bought my core position in gold two years ago near the $1140 bottom, added some more this week, and now hold around 15% of investable assets that way. I remain hopeful Congress will not enact egregious taxes at the time significant increases in the Gold to US$ ratio makes the Fed monetary policies look really bad."

"I buy and sell my PM for cash and receipts just say "cash" on them. If there is a profit how can the government even know?

"I don't understand how anyone can allow themselves to be in a position to be taxed on PM.

"I must be missing something."

"The money laundering regulations kick in on larger transactions; I have been asked for my social security number by Apmex, so there is the government reporting that needs to be declared on your tax filings. You buy $100K in gold or silver when gold is $350, sell at $1800 and that encumbers a large tax obligation."

"If you live in the cash economy as I tried for a while with no SS tie-ins or suspicious activity reports where the state or federal governments would have enough of an interest there would be concerns. Structuring is another target: https://tinyurl.com/y78n95k3 I know plenty of coin dealers who will pay cash for pms, they just have to know you and know they won't be stung, someone could be wearing a wire and looking for government leniency if they catch someone. Pms aren't that hard to turn into cash. Real estate on the other hand is hard to sell without tax liabilities due to all the paperwork involved, but I have known people who were able to do it."
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
User avatar
noblepa
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 8:20 pm

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by noblepa »

A question about gold transactions.

Last night, I was watching an episode of "Pawn Stars". A guy came in with a 1930-something Lincoln touring car. He was asking $100,000, but settled on $95,000, if Rick paid in gold.

In one of their little asides made directly to the camera, Rick said he couldn't legally pay the man in gold, but he could pay him in cash for the car, and then immediately sell him $95k worth of gold, which is what they did. Rick handed him a large bundle of $100 bills, which the seller then handed back and received a bunch of gold coins.

My question is: what law makes it illegal for him to pay for the car directly in gold? In either case, wouldn't the shop have to report a cash transaction of more than $10,000?
Number Six
Hereditary Margrave of Mooloosia
Posts: 1232
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:35 pm
Location: Connecticut, "The Constitution State"

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Number Six »

You can be sure that "Rick" of Pawn Stars didn't trade the gold at wholesale pricing; I have known few dealers who trade at reasonable wholesale pricing. So he made a bundle, plus $40K plus, plus, plus per Pawn Star character per episode. "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". lol Taxes should reflect fair market value; I tried to get to the bottom of the IRS regulations on gold years ago, how it should be taxed. I got a variety of answers, if I remember right the answer was as "property".
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)

'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Kahre's Appeal (Again?)

Post by Arthur Rubin »

noblepa wrote: Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:35 pm My question is: what law makes it illegal for him to pay for the car directly in gold? In either case, wouldn't the shop have to report a cash transaction of more than $10,000?
My guess would be that pawn shop operators are prohibited by state law from performing exchanges as a business transaction -- or that a business required to report cash transactions is prohibited from performing non-cash transactions which would be reportable if split. I don't think there is a prohibition on barter transactions exceeding $10,000 in value between private individuals, although both would be required to report the transaction on their respective income tax returns, possibly even if one has a unallowable loss.
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95