SandySandfort on January 25, 2009, 04:00:02 pm
IRS taxes barter income because in the United States, it's otherwise too convenient a tax dodge for the middle class.

(I recall a recent case where some business owner in Las Vegas paid his employees in Silver and Gold Eagles, and reported their income based on the face value of the coins, since they're officially "legal tender." The IRS believed they should have been reported based on the market value, or barter value, of the coins, which were 10 to 35 times face value. IRS won in court, big surprise.)
And remember, taxing barter is a relatively new concept in the US. Before some decisive decisions, it was not taxable. Of course, even if nominally taxable, there is a serious audit trail and proof problem for the government. It's mostly invisible on a person-to-person basis.
The countries on Terra by United World are either industrial societies where barter is pretty much regulated out of existence, or subsistence cultures where barter is the only practical means of trade. A wise livestock manager doesn't starve his herd, he balances his feeding, culling and harvesting so as to optimize the value of that herd.
EFT never said that all commodity barter is non-taxable in the UW. In fact, "barter clubs" and such that use barter "points," "barter bucks" etc. are taxed, because there is an audit trail. But if Bob trades you a dozen eggs for a meatloaf, who cares? So you "legalize" it because you cannot stop it and it isn't worth the enforcement cost.
In the relatively independent areas such as Panama and UAE, the barter exemption allows the elites from the UW to transfer wealth into and out of tax havens more or less legally.
Bingo.

KBCraig on January 26, 2009, 01:24:04 am
(I recall a recent case where some business owner in Las Vegas paid his employees in Silver and Gold Eagles, and reported their income based on the face value of the coins, since they're officially "legal tender." The IRS believed they should have been reported based on the market value, or barter value, of the coins, which were 10 to 35 times face value. IRS won in court, big surprise.)

No real surprise.  The judge knew who signed his pay check and stole the money to cover it.

Actually, the IRS didn't win. Of 161 charges, they got zero convictions.

The business owner is Robert Kahre, and all of his employees were acquitted, and the jury was hung on all 109 charges against Kahre.


Rocketman on January 26, 2009, 07:37:28 am
Interesting.  Then I guess if your leaving the country with 20 silver peace dollars and you report your taking 20 dollars out of the country that the government while they may not like it can't do anything to you.   ;D

SandySandfort on January 26, 2009, 08:08:05 am
Interesting.  Then I guess if your leaving the country with 20 silver peace dollars and you report your taking 20 dollars out of the country that the government while they may not like it can't do anything to you.   ;D

Where to begin... First, why in the world would anyone report taking 20 silver dollars out of the country? If the legal theory is that they are only taking $20 out, there is no requirement to report, 'cause it's under ten grand. One's first line of defense is their ignorance of the coins. The legal theory is a fall-back position, which hopefully will mitigate evidence of mens rea below that of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the minds of a jury.

Second, I don't know why libertarian "theorists" always get so legal-minded when dealing with the government. They always come up with pet theory as to why the income tax is not legal or the 2nd Amendments somehow protects their right to weapons for self-defense. Then they are shocked that they lose in court. NEWS FLASH: It is irrelevant if they are legally right or wrong. When the government has a strong vested interest in your losing, you will lose. As above, a legal argument is your fall-back position. Your first line of defense is keeping a low profile and not getting caught.

P.S. Yes, I saw the smiley, but lest others did not, I treated the suggestion as being serious.


Leviathan on January 26, 2009, 12:36:32 pm
Always does seem a little funky to me.  As I keep stating, the very act of trying to engage in these legalisms is admitting their authority on the topic, just asking them not to do anything in that particular case.  Either they have the authority, and you're at the mercy of a judicial system that has a decided conflict of interest, or they don't and there's no reason to engage in the legalities...

Case in point in today's comic.  By seeking audience with Reginald (Reggie), Guy pretty much declared the legitimacy of his monarchy in the eyes of UWRS (and perhaps UW at large).  Following this up with a protest that his government isn't very "democratic" is challenging a point already conceded.  Either Reggie is a monarch and rightful government, and capable of acting as agent in any negotiations, or he's not and the UWRS has to look at establishing government before it can negotiate with any given party.  Changing this "rightful government" into a democratic regime would be a point in a negotiation.  But Guy doesn't seem very good at this, heh.  More used to dealing with individual accounts than negotiation with an ostensible foreign power.  Any prior negotiations would've probably taken the form of "Okay, we think one of the people in your territory isn't paying taxes.  Here's the breakdown of how much of the taxes you'll get if you let us collect.  Green light?"  He's probably never had to deal with a government not amenable to his demands before, heh.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 12:50:33 pm by Leviathan »

Rocketman on January 26, 2009, 01:28:21 pm
Okay, Sandy from what your saying I didn't think it through as well as I should have and despite the smiley face, I was serious when I said it.   Let's say that I was taking out 9,995 silver morgan and peace dollars each having .77344 oz of silver in them that would come to 7,730.53 oz of silver.  Is it your contention then that reporting is ilrelevant, that it's not a violation of whatever reporting law that the USA has but that if they decide to that they at any time can confiscate it and the law be damned?  Or would they have gotten me on "structuring" as I understand it?  I admit that I don't understand "structuring" very well except that it's very nebulous and can mean practically anything.
     My answer to the question of why libertarian's get so legal minded when dealing with the government is because ONE: We tend to think (unlike the government) in logical terms and believe others think that same way too.  That's why so many of us are fans of Star Trek and are computer programmers or at least work with computers.  It takes a logical mind to do that.  TWO: Since we live on the "fringe" of society (at least politically) we automatically want to know what the limits are as far as government goes.  What we can get away with just some grumbling from government and what isn't going to be allowed.  THREE: Being logical we always like to think a few steps ahead.  It doesn't take clairvoyant powers to be able to see that the "powers that be" either through stupidity or just ignorance are heading this country right off a cliff and it's going to be a long drop right onto the jagged rocks below.  Roughly a year ago I read an article from the sovereign society that claimed that nearly 10% of the population of the U.S. was either planning on moving, making preparations or just seriously thinking about leaving the country.  My guess is that the number is higher now because of rise of "socialism" by the congress.  That's why there are new "exit" taxes being implemented.

SandySandfort on January 26, 2009, 03:06:08 pm
Always does seem a little funky to me.  As I keep stating, the very act of trying to engage in these legalisms is admitting their authority...

Yes AND it brings you to their attention. There is no way on earth that a government can directly control even a tiny fraction of its population. But they do have the power of point force and intimidation by example. Loudly proclaiming this or that isn't constitutional and otherwise giving them the finger will only bring that point force right down on your head to set an example.

SandySandfort on January 26, 2009, 05:59:45 pm
 Let's say that I was taking out 9,995 silver morgan and peace dollars each having .77344 oz of silver in them that would come to 7,730.53 oz of silver.  Is it your contention then that reporting is ilrelevant, that it's not a violation of whatever reporting law that the USA has but that if they decide to that they at any time can confiscate it and the law be damned?
What I am saying is that if you believe (or if you can appear to believe) that 9,995 silver dollars have a face value of US$9995 and therefore do not trip the $10k reporting requirement as you understand the law, reporting would be stupid for two reasons:

(1) It is strong evidence that you do believe they should be reported (presumably due to their higher market value).
(2) you draw attention to booty, the government types will try to grab it, because that is their job; that is what they do.

So if you don't report them and they aren't discovered, you get out with your money. If they are discovered, you are no worse off then if you performed a self-mugging and reported them in the first place. Plus, you still have your legal fall-back position that their face value is $9,995 and therefore, there never was any duty to report.


  Or would they have gotten me on "structuring" as I understand it?  I admit that I don't understand "structuring" very well except that it's very nebulous and can mean practically anything.
No, "structuring" is fairly specific. Structure would apply if you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting requirement, by making several trip with under $10,000 in each tranche.

My answer to the question of why libertarian's get so legal minded when dealing with the government is because ONE: We tend to think (unlike the government) in logical terms and believe others think that same way too.  That's why so many of us are fans of Star Trek and are computer programmers or at least work with computers.  It takes a logical mind to do that. 

Don't conflate being "logical" with being "rational." If "logical" interpretations of laws are not being accepted by the Powers That Be, it is irrational to keep trying to sell the same soap.

TWO: Since we live on the "fringe" of society (at least politically) we automatically want to know what the limits are as far as government goes.  What we can get away with just some grumbling from government and what isn't going to be allowed. 

I'm not sure what you mean in this argument, but it sounds a lot like walking through a mine field to find out where the mines are. I think all that is necessary to formulate a reasonable risk/benefit analysis is to watch what other do, and don't, get away with and act accordingly.

THREE: Being logical we always like to think a few steps ahead.  It doesn't take clairvoyant powers to be able to see that the "powers that be" either through stupidity or just ignorance are heading this country right off a cliff and it's going to be a long drop right onto the jagged rocks below.  Roughly a year ago I read an article from the sovereign society that claimed that nearly 10% of the population of the U.S. was either planning on moving, making preparations or just seriously thinking about leaving the country.  My guess is that the number is higher now because of rise of "socialism" by the congress.  That's why there are new "exit" taxes being implemented.

Well, I've lived in Panama for nearly six year and I'm thinking about moving further south. What does that tell you?  ;)

Rocketman on January 27, 2009, 01:05:16 pm

  Or would they have gotten me on "structuring" as I understand it?  I admit that I don't understand "structuring" very well except that it's very nebulous and can mean practically anything.
No, "structuring" is fairly specific. Structure would apply if you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting requirement, by making several trip with under $10,000 in each tranche.
But what kind of time frame is involved?  If you were moving $100,000 out of the country at just under $10,000 a move then could you legally do it over a year, ten years, a hundred years without activating the requirement?  I've read your answer several times and have now a better understanding of what is legal and what is not but there always seem to be answers that ask new questions that aren't answered.  Maybe I should have gotten a law degree instead of an engineering one.





SandySandfort on January 27, 2009, 01:32:47 pm
  Or would they have gotten me on "structuring" as I understand it?  I admit that I don't understand "structuring" very well except
No, "structuring" is fairly specific. Structure would apply if you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting requirement, by making several trip with under $10,000 in each tranche.
But what kind of time frame is involved?  If you were moving $100,000 out of the country at just under $10,000 a move then could you legally do it over a year, ten years, a hundred years without activating the requirement?  I've read your answer several times and have now a better understanding of what is legal and what is not but there always seem to be answers that ask new questions that aren't answered.  Maybe I should have gotten a law degree instead of an engineering one.

The magic word here is intent. And, no, you can't "prove" someone's intent. (This is where thinking like an engineer gets you in trouble.) A jury is free to infer your intent from the totality of the circumstances--even to a level "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury decides that you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting limit, then you are toast no matter what your actual intent was. By the way, I have no problem with juries inferring someone's intent. Though human are not mind readers, they know how humans think. I only have a problem with the stupid victimless "crime" of doing what you want with your own money.

Rocketman on January 27, 2009, 06:54:49 pm


The magic word here is intent. And, no, you can't "prove" someone's intent.  A jury is free to infer your intent from the totality of the circumstances--even to a level "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury decides that you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting limit, then you are toast no matter what your actual intent was. By the way, I have no problem with juries inferring someone's intent. Though human are not mind readers, they know how humans think. I only have a problem with the stupid victimless "crime" of doing what you want with your own money.[/size]
Okay, then why are their laws that have been ruled "unconstitutional" by the supreme court because they were too broadly defined?  It seems to me that "structuring" is like porn.  If you can clearly define it, that's one thing but how anyone can convict someone for it you need to go by more than just your (meaning the juries) feelings.  If the law would say that more than $10,000 out in less than a 90 day period is structuring it least it would be fairly defined.   As far as the "victimless crime" of being able to do what you want with your own money.  I couldn't possibly agree more with that.  If Washington or Jefferson were alive today they would be horrified by what this government is doing to it's people.  That and MAD AS HELL!!!!  >:(
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 07:08:47 pm by Rocketman »

Monkt on January 27, 2009, 08:57:43 pm


The magic word here is intent. And, no, you can't "prove" someone's intent.  A jury is free to infer your intent from the totality of the circumstances--even to a level "beyond a reasonable doubt." If a jury decides that you intended to circumvent the $10,000 reporting limit, then you are toast no matter what your actual intent was. By the way, I have no problem with juries inferring someone's intent. Though human are not mind readers, they know how humans think. I only have a problem with the stupid victimless "crime" of doing what you want with your own money.[/size]
Okay, then why are their laws that have been ruled "unconstitutional" by the supreme court because they were too broadly defined?  It seems to me that "structuring" is like porn.  If you can clearly define it, that's one thing but how anyone can convict someone for it you need to go by more than just your (meaning the juries) feelings.  If the law would say that more than $10,000 out in less than a 90 day period is structuring it least it would be fairly defined.   As far as the "victimless crime" of being able to do what you want with your own money.  I couldn't possibly agree more with that.  If Washington or Jefferson were alive today they would be horrified by what this government is doing to it's people.  That and MAD AS HELL!!!!  >:(
Well Jefferson sure, he was horrified by government during his own time. Washington I'm not so sure about.

wdg3rd on January 28, 2009, 12:05:12 am

Well, I've lived in Panama for nearly six year and I'm thinking about moving further south. What does that tell you?  ;)

It tells me you're getting low on options, because I can't think of (m)any governments further south than Panama in this hemisphere that are less socialist.  Not much joy in the other hemisphere either.  You might as well come back north and  die gloriously as we man the barricades and the government cuts its losses and nukes every city in revolt.  Which would include DC, a shame about that neglect by weirdo {liberal|conservative} programmers not putting an exception in the database.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

SandySandfort on January 28, 2009, 12:05:28 am

Okay, then why are their laws that have been ruled "unconstitutional" by the supreme court because they were too broadly defined?  It seems to me that "structuring" is like porn.  If you can clearly define it, that's one thing but how anyone can convict someone for it you need to go by more than just your (meaning the juries) feelings. 
[/quote]

1)"Structuring" is clearly defined (see, http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/919/919.F2d.258.90-2405.html#fn8).

2) Nobody said anything about "feelings." The jury looks at the totality of the evidence and comes to a conclusion whether or not there the defendant's purpose was to evade the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.23.

I am surprised that is so hard to grasp. Everyday, we make assessments about other humans internal state: "I saw that he was angry." "He intentionally tried to run me off the road" Etc. Read the case from which the footnote was taken. Would you give even a reasonable doubt to the defendant, if you heard his cockamamie explanation? Of course, he was structuring and he knew it and intended to do so. Any other conclusion just doesn't make sense. So, if I were on the jury, would I find him guilty? Nope, but not because is isn't guilty under the law. I would cut him loose as an act of jury nullification of the stupid, evil law.


If the law would say that more than $10,000 out in less than a 90 day period is structuring it least it would be fairly defined. 

Well cool beans. If you ever get elected to congress you can propose that, but that's not the way our current congress decided to define it.

 As far as the "victimless crime" of being able to do what you want with your own money.  I couldn't possibly agree more with that.  If Washington or Jefferson were alive today they would be horrified by what this government is doing to it's people.  That and MAD AS HELL!!!!  >:(

But they aren't here today, so we just have to soldier on as best we can.

SandySandfort on January 28, 2009, 12:29:13 am

Well, I've lived in Panama for nearly six year and I'm thinking about moving further south. What does that tell you?  ;)

It tells me you're getting low on options, because I can't think of (m)any governments further south than Panama in this hemisphere that are less socialist.  Not much joy in the other hemisphere either.

I am always fascinating about how little gringos know about how the rest of the world really works. The question in any country is not what type of government it has or what the laws are. The real issue is what actually happens in real life--what gets enforced and what is ignored. For example, in the United States, there is a second amendment to the constitution. It's pretty clear, right? I mean, what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," don't they understand.

However, in Panama, keeping and bearing arms isn't a right, it's a privilege. A privilege almost any citizen or permanent resident can get pretty much by applying for it. And, of course, once you have license to own a gun, you also are automatically permitted to carry it concealed. So who is freer, an American who has a right keep and bear arms, but finds it almost impossible to do so, or a Panamanian who gets his privilege to get a gun and CCW, pretty much by just asking?

If any of you want to discuss real world details, feel free to contact me directly at sandy@sandfort.biz using PGP. My public key is here http://sandfort.biz/sandy.asc No PGP, no reply.