Need analysis of information

Originally Posted by rottweiler

This statute appears to mean that any debt obligation issued by any bank can offset a debt to the bank of issue for a home loan and that issue is not taxable by any taxing authority. Am I missing something?

That is the same interpretation that I got from it, and that would seemingly go hand in hand with one of the theories that have been expounded on relative to HJR 192... That, he who has the gold, has the bill. So to speak.

Until such time as we can get someone in this forum with actual banking experience then it will remain a mystery..

Jerry.

[rottweiler]

jerrypitts,

For what it is worth, it would not make sense for a member bank to issue debt istruments to raise funds since that would reduce their reserves and propably accomplish nothing.

If they needed to, the Fed. member banks can borrow from the Fed.

How did this statute come to your attention? Is somebody claiming this might allow us to use BOE's, etc. for obligations pertaining to mortgages?

Originally Posted by rottweiler

jerrypitts,

For what it is worth, it would not make sense for a member bank to issue debt istruments to raise funds since that would reduce their reserves and propably accomplish nothing.

If they needed to, the Fed. member banks can borrow from the Fed.

How did this statute come to your attention? Is somebody claiming this might allow us to use BOE's, etc. for obligations pertaining to mortgages?

I was researching the term "unearned coupon" and ran across that citation. I found it rather curious in regard to the language they have used in that particular sentence..

I was not certain whether it would be of value to the group or not, thus the reasoning behind me asking for analysis of the passage.

Jerry.

[rottweiler]

I think the old time bonds had coupons attached that would be mailed in periodically by the bond holder and a check would be cut by the debtor for interest earned and mailed back to the holder of the bond. If the bond was redeemed before maturity there would be unearned coupons still attached. Think of these interest payments as similar to a stock dividend.

I think that is a old statute and may no longer be relevant to current banking practice, especially since all banks are basically members of the fed system now and probably have no need to issue bonds, etc.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I think the old time bonds had coupons attached that would be mailed in periodically by the bond holder and a check would be cut by the debtor for interest earned and mailed back to the holder of the bond. If the bond was redeemed before maturity there would be unearned coupons still attached. Think of these interest payments as similar to a stock dividend.

I think that is a old statute and may no longer be relevant to current banking practice, especially since all banks are basically members of the fed system now and probably have no need to issue bonds, etc.

Nope... not an old one.. most current edition of the USC.

Jerry.

[rottweiler]

What year was this statute passed into law?

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Nope... not an old one.. most current edition of the USC.

Jerry.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

What year was this statute passed into law?

"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1433 Prev | Next

§ 1433. Exemption from taxation; obligations acceptable as credit on debt of home owner


Release date: 2005-07-21

[rottweiler]

You are saying this statute was passed into law on 7/21/05? That is strange. I wonder what the real purpose of this statute is.

"The notes, debentures, and bonds issued by any bank"
Do you think this may refer to the notes we sign to get loans? The banks certainly put our notes in circulation(issue). Including "Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and debentures" in this statute certainly seem to back this up. This sure sounds like our note obligations are acceptable as credit on our debt(home owner).

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1433 Prev | Next

§ 1433. Exemption from taxation; obligations acceptable as credit on debt of home owner


Release date: 2005-07-21

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

"TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1433 Prev | Next

§ 1433. Exemption from taxation; obligations acceptable as credit on debt of home owner


Release date: 2005-07-21

JerryPitts,
Please give me some proof that the release date of this statute was 2005-07-21 and then tell me how I can find the date a particular statute became law.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by rottweiler

You are saying this statute was passed into law on 7/21/05? That is strange. I wonder what the real purpose of this statute is.

"The notes, debentures, and bonds issued by any bank"
Do you think this may refer to the notes we sign to get loans? The banks certainly put our notes in circulation(issue). Including "Federal Home Loan Bank bonds and debentures" in this statute certainly seem to back this up. This sure sounds like our note obligations are acceptable as credit on our debt(home owner).

regarding the date of the "statute", Someone told me that Congress repasses/revotes on all the statutes every two years. I dont know why nor was I given a reason.

Speculation on my part in context of the Constitution leads me to think or associate such an event with passage of military spending given everything else I'm familiar with.

I'm not sure tho, I havent investigated.

but it is rather curious .