• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

What law says I cant be paid in real money?

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#1
Not that fancy monoploy money fiat stuff but the real shiny stuff?
in a related question is fiat even constitutional? If not has it ever been challenged at the SC level?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#2
Not that fancy monoploy money fiat stuff but the real shiny stuff?
Sure can, but if you work for $1/hr to be paid in legal tender sae's and you convert them to the other kind of dollars for spending, you may have issues with certain regulators in DC.

in a related question is fiat even constitutional?
Does it say in the Constitution that only gold and silver can be money? Or does it say that the States can only make gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts? It seems to me there's a distinction there. Especially when you add in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 which states that Congress has the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign Coin,.... Does it say that the money Congress coins must be comprised of any particular thing? Doesn't seem to.

IMHO, if it were so important to the Founders to only have money coined that was gold or silver, why wouldn't they have specified that? They spelled it out that way for the States, why not for the fed.gov too?

On a related note there is a reason that debts today are, technically speaking anyways, discharged as opposed to actually being paid.
...but that's probably a subject for another thread.


If not has it ever been challenged at the SC level?
Of that I have no idea. Have you tried searching for a case?
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,673
Likes
4,832
Location
right here right now
#3
Remember this case:

Robert Kahre vs. the IRS and DOJ


On a 106-degree May afternoon in 2003, government agents raided several establishments belonging to Southern Nevada businessman Robert “Bobby” Kahre. With guns drawn, officials held more than 20 handcuffed workers in the sun without water as agents collected records and other materials.

Kahre hadn’t committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS’s confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.
http://www.rapidtrends.com/robert-kahre-vs-the-irs-and-doj/
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#4
Joe King, that's one issue that's always been confusing, there is no definition of money as far as I can tell. Since gold and silver were money for a long time I assumed that's what they meant but then again we have also had several paper currencies in the past that always went bust.

Arminius, I know that case well. The issue the IRS had was not that he paid his workers with gold and silver but that he paid them with gold and silver in one window then they walked to a 2nd window and cashed them in for for federal reserve notes. The profit realized on that transaction was taxable.

Just being paid in silver dollars was not illegal. Several years ago the threshold for filing an income tax return was 9000 or so. I think it's higher now but 9000 x 16.50 is 148k or so in federal reserve notes. The problem of course is getting other businesses like groceries and gas stations and utilities to accept silver dollars.
All of that aside I would imagine if you were self employed and demanded silver as payment for your services that you could just cash in enough as needed to pay those bills that you had to in federal reserve notes. My guess is you could lower your tax burden substantially if you did structure your life in this manner.

Gold and silver coin are legal tender so there's a reason why we have 2 forms of currency.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#5
It is called "full faith and credit." So I guess it can be anything.

Now about the money changing. I read that case and what they stipulated was a tax dodge due to the gold being bought back which showed he had the reserve notes ie: money. If he had just paid them on the face value of the coin at a very reduced rate of pay he would have been ok. That guy actually paid the courthouse filing fees in silver though, yes at face value even.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#6
It is called "full faith and credit." So I guess it can be anything.
Seems so.

Now about the money changing. I read that case and what they stipulated was a tax dodge due to the gold being bought back which showed he had the reserve notes ie: money.
He should have paid them with SAE's and left it to the workers to find their own way to sell them, if they so desired.
...but he needed the coins back so he could use them to pay his people next week. Having to constantly buy SAE's at market prices, just to use them to pay others at their face value, would quickly get very expensive.

If he had just paid them on the face value of the coin at a very reduced rate of pay he would have been ok.
Not even then, because if he did that the State regulators would come after him for violating minimum wage laws.
Ie: if you really want to treat SAE's as "dollars" for tax purposes, you'd have to pay approx 8 SAE's per hour just to comply with minimum wage laws.
...and even more in States with higher min wages.

That guy actually paid the courthouse filing fees in silver though, yes at face value even.
It was probably his last ditch effort to show that he actually spent them as dollars. Had he done that with his employees the whole time while also meeting minimum wage laws, he'd have likely not had Courthouse filing fees to pay.
...but at what cost? Paying people approx $160/hour. They best do some awesome work at that rate.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,223
Likes
4,675
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#7
Seems so.

He should have paid them with SAE's and left it to the workers to find their own way to sell them, if they so desired.
...but he needed the coins back so he could use them to pay his people next week. Having to constantly buy SAE's at market prices, just to use them to pay others at their face value, would quickly get very expensive.

Not even then, because if he did that the State regulators would come after him for violating minimum wage laws.
Ie: if you really want to treat SAE's as "dollars" for tax purposes, you'd have to pay approx 8 SAE's per hour just to comply with minimum wage laws.
...and even more in States with higher min wages.

It was probably his last ditch effort to show that he actually spent them as dollars. Had he done that with his employees the whole time while also meeting minimum wage laws, he'd have likely not had Courthouse filing fees to pay.
...but at what cost? Paying people approx $160/hour. They best do some awesome work at that rate.
You gots it....the guy painted himself into a corner.
 

Ragnarok

I'd rather be
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,582
Likes
4,436
#8
I wonder if the issue of being paid in real money versus FRNs might also have something to do with one's legal status as a US citizen versus lawful status as a state national.

R.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
3,915
Likes
14,436
Location
third cove on the right
#9
Remember this case:

Robert Kahre vs. the IRS and DOJ


On a 106-degree May afternoon in 2003, government agents raided several establishments belonging to Southern Nevada businessman Robert “Bobby” Kahre. With guns drawn, officials held more than 20 handcuffed workers in the sun without water as agents collected records and other materials.

Kahre hadn’t committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS’s confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.
http://www.rapidtrends.com/robert-kahre-vs-the-irs-and-doj/


September 30, 2007


Media Blackout:
161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions

IRS Suffers Staggering Defeat


Tax Questions Raised Regarding
Gold and Silver Coins Used to Pay Wages


Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.

The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took place over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.

On September 20, 2007, three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure, ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial. To this day, with exception of the single article by the Review Journal, no major media entity has published a news story regarding the outcome of this important federal criminal tax case.

The censorship of this important news story is, unfortunately, not unexpected given the continuing, worldwide onslaught against the U.S. "dollar" -- specifically the Federal Reserve variety, and the ever growing numbers of Federal Reserve Notes required to trade for an actual ounce of silver, gold, oil, or for that matter, anything.

In short, this failed prosecution has coalesced and exposed truths our Government desperately needs to hide from the People: the truth about our money, the truth about our (privately-owned) central bank, and the truth about the fraudulent nature of the operation and enforcement of the federal income tax system.

Click here to read the April, 2005 DOJ press release announcing the prosecution.
Click here to read the 9/20 story by the Review Journal about the trial.

According to defense attorney Joel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the primary "willfulness" defense was that the defendants believed they had no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.

The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor.

The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver U.S. coins must be considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue code.

Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant's monetary argument at the heart of the defendants "willfulness" defense.

The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property," is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.

In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable "income" (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid -- i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.

The first case, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

"These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

The second case, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

"A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."

Defense attorney Hansen confirmed that members of the jury were able to actually hold and inspect the gold and silver U.S. coins paid to the workers.

After almost four months of testimony and three and a half days of deliberation, the jury did not convict any of the defendants of any of the 161 crimes alleged. Although some defendants were acquitted of multiple counts, and several were acquitted completely, others may have to stand for a retrial if the Government brings charges a second time.

The Review Journal reported the jury foreman claimed DOJ prosecutors admitted they were "shocked" by the outcome.

In March 2007, the primary defendant, Bob Kahre, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the prosecutor and IRS agents who had conducted what he alleges to be an unlawful search and seizure raid. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to overturn a previous District Court ruling holding that the federal prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for the unlawful raid. Read more.

Click here to execute a Google News search to attempt to locate recent news stories about the Kahre tax trial.

The media suppression of this story is similar to the widespread mainstream media suppression of the July 11, 2007 acquittal of Louisiana attorney Tommy Cryer who was also charged with multiple federal income tax crimes and relied upon numerous Supreme Court precedents and U.S. tax laws to establish his "willfulness" defense. Click here for a previous WTP update containing a link to Cryer's 100-page Motion to Dismiss which details his legal arguments.

Click here to execute a Google News archive search to attempt to locate news stories about Tommy Cryer's tax trial.



PLEASE NOTE: Following recent statements by the DOJ, most of the content of the WTP websites (including our on-line store) has been fully restored for public access. The "6700" case is currently being appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

History is made by those who show up and make it happen. Please help us continue our epic fight by making a donation. If we have no funds, the battle cannot be fought.

To make a secure, tax-deductible donation to the WTP Foundation, please click here: Donation. You can make a one-time or recurring donation and can also establish the dates the secure transactions are processed each month.


Update Related Links


Access all the 6700 Lawsuit Filings and Court Orders.




http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-09-30.htm
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,477
Likes
6,602
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#11
So? Why did I read the guy got boned? Hummm?
He did get boned. Was upheld on appeal. The kangaroo court gave him 15 years and $16million in restitution to pay.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1651531.html

Again, had he actually used contract labor and allowed them to leave with their pay in Au/Ag, he might have been alright. Key word, might, because they'd have still likely gone after him in some other manner.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#12
I think you nailed it. If everyone was a sub contractor and paid his or her own taxes then shouldn't have been any issues. Of course if you were a sub and only made 1 dollar an hr or even 2 then you probably wouldnt have to even file a tax return. Of course if you cashed them in then you would be responsible for the capital gains on that.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,773
Likes
11,753
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#13
Essentially they were attempting to shift the burden of tax collection from themselves & place it where it inherently belongs, on the employee.... However, when they applied & accepted a corporate status, ein numbers & conducted interstate commerce employing & using private bank credit they privately volunteered to abide by the IRS & Treasury regulations governing the collection & remittance of the taxes.

Of course they lost, as much as I hate to admit it, their "shift the burden" scheme was & is a tax evasion scam. The use of AU & AG is nonsequitor!
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,788
Likes
6,232
#15
Essentially they were attempting to shift the burden of tax collection from themselves & place it where it inherently belongs, on the employee.... However, when they applied & accepted a corporate status, ein numbers & conducted interstate commerce employing & using private bank credit they privately volunteered to abide by the IRS & Treasury regulations governing the collection & remittance of the taxes.

Of course they lost, as much as I hate to admit it, their "shift the burden" scheme was & is a tax evasion scam. The use of AU & AG is nonsequitor!
It does appear that way because of the way he executed the strategy. As was motioned previously, if he had just paid them and they went home with their gold and silver there would be no tax evasion on his part. His mistake was setting up 2 windows. One to pay in gold and silver the other to buy it back at market value.
There is no law that says you cannot contract your labor for gold and silver. The SC case law is pretty clear on this issue and there is no difference between 1 dollar paper and 1 dollar silver.