FRN-Discharge-Taxes

[DCLXVI]

If a debt is merely discharged but not paid when FRN are used, then cannot one just claim the original debt as unpaid and file it as a loss on their tax return?

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by DCLXVI

If a debt is merely discharged but not paid when FRN are used, then cannot one just claim the original debt as unpaid and file it as a loss on their tax return?

Good question. Can debt be paid with a debt instrument? I have been told "NO", but it seems to be the case for some decades to use funny money to pay "debts" off with.

One should not generate debt if you cannot or has no intentions of paying it to begin with. "Theft" comes to mind.

[Shoonra]

(a) It is not at all clear that an FRN is, in law, a "debt instrument". The statutes describe FRNs as "legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." 31 USC sec 5103.
At least two unpublished court decisions have rejected the tax dodge founded on the notion that FRNs are "debt instruments": Galbreath v. Dept of Revenue (Ore. Tax Magis. Div. 7/24/07), and US v. Jungles (ND IL 6/7/88) aff'd 903 F2d 468, 66 AFTR2d 5048, 90 US Tax Cases para 50289.

(b) Some twit came up with the notion that a debt cannot be paid with a "debt instrument". Not true. A US Treasury Bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I would (and almost any sensible person would) accept it for payment infinitely faster than the worthless POMCs that DiM tries to pass.

(c) The courts have said, repeatedly, that FRNs are money - countable for the purposes of taxation - and, perhaps more important, the medium with which taxes are to be paid.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(a) It is not at all clear that an FRN is, in law, a "debt instrument". The statutes describe FRNs as "legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." 31 USC sec 5103.
At least two unpublished court decisions have rejected the tax dodge founded on the notion that FRNs are "debt instruments": Galbreath v. Dept of Revenue (Ore. Tax Magis. Div. 7/24/07), and US v. Jungles (ND IL 6/7/88) aff'd 903 F2d 468, 66 AFTR2d 5048, 90 US Tax Cases para 50289.

(b) Some twit came up with the notion that a debt cannot be paid with a "debt instrument". Not true. A US Treasury Bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I would (and almost any sensible person would) accept it for payment infinitely faster than the worthless POMCs that DiM tries to pass.

(c) The courts have said, repeatedly, that FRNs are money - countable for the purposes of taxation - and, perhaps more important, the medium with which taxes are to be paid.

Pure and unadulterated nuggetry. Listen, boxhead, is the frn borrowed into existence? If so, then you tell me, how it ISN'T a debt instrument. Also, I doubt that any judge would say that it is money, for why have the words 'legal tender' on it when the old notes said money?
You are gonna have to do better than this, librarian, you controllers just won't be happy.

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

(a) It is not at all clear that an FRN is, in law, a "debt instrument". The statutes describe FRNs as "legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." 31 USC sec 5103.
At least two unpublished court decisions have rejected the tax dodge founded on the notion that FRNs are "debt instruments": Galbreath v. Dept of Revenue (Ore. Tax Magis. Div. 7/24/07), and US v. Jungles (ND IL 6/7/88) aff'd 903 F2d 468, 66 AFTR2d 5048, 90 US Tax Cases para 50289.

(b) Some twit came up with the notion that a debt cannot be paid with a "debt instrument". Not true. A US Treasury Bond is undeniably a debt instrument, and I would (and almost any sensible person would) accept it for payment infinitely faster than the worthless POMCs that DiM tries to pass.

(c) The courts have said, repeatedly, that FRNs are money - countable for the purposes of taxation - and, perhaps more important, the medium with which taxes are to be paid.

Shoonra: it say's FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE right on it. Is a note not debt? Is it a promise to pay?

I don't know if you can pay debt with debt by law. We do it with credit cards all the time, checks and so on. So, I would have to go with you on that, that it is legal to do so. Unless someone want's to point it out as fact.

[Shoonra]

The mere fact that the govt has titled FRNs with the word "Note" does NOT mean that they are promissory notes or other debt instruments as the UCC uses the word "note". Beery v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 290, 253 P2d 1005; Hatfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1977) 68 Tax Ct. 895.

Courts have held that FRNs actually PAY, not merely "discharge", taxes and other debts. Rene v. Citibank (EDNY 1999) 32 F.Supp.2d 539; Nixon v. Individual Head of Saint Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 898; US v. Slater (D.Del 1982) 96 FRD 53.

[goffertrap]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The mere fact that the govt has titled FRNs with the word "Note" does NOT mean that they are promissory notes or other debt instruments as the UCC uses the word "note". Beery v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 290, 253 P2d 1005; Hatfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1977) 68 Tax Ct. 895.

Courts have held that FRNs actually PAY, not merely "discharge", taxes and other debts. Rene v. Citibank (EDNY 1999) 32 F.Supp.2d 539; Nixon v. Individual Head of Saint Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 898; US v. Slater (D.Del 1982) 96 FRD 53.

well, there we go! Nice to see someone does a little research into these things.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The mere fact that the govt has titled FRNs with the word "Note" does NOT mean that they are promissory notes or other debt instruments as the UCC uses the word "note". Beery v. County of Los Angeles (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 290, 253 P2d 1005; Hatfield v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1977) 68 Tax Ct. 895.

Courts have held that FRNs actually PAY, not merely "discharge", taxes and other debts. Rene v. Citibank (EDNY 1999) 32 F.Supp.2d 539; Nixon v. Individual Head of Saint Joseph Mortgage Co. (ND Ind 1985) 615 F.Supp 898; US v. Slater (D.Del 1982) 96 FRD 53.

You didn't answer my questions, did you?
I was right, you aren't very good at this. Looks like you are gonna be in the library for quite some time to come.

[goffertrap]

I think it boils down to: Where is the proof that FRN are infact debt instruments? Can you pay a debt with a debt in the USA? And-Can anyone provide proof of this?

All I've seen so far is opinion, and then along comes Shoonra with some case law, and BANG! I think it was very nice of this Shoonra to take the time to even look. let alone take the time to post his/her findings on here. Shoonra has provided something more than a mere opinion on FRN, thank you Shoonra.

[dorkenbutt]

I ran across this post on another forum. I think it about sums it up.

The link is from the federal reserves own website regarding legal tender and the FRN. Notice it says that FRNs have no value. It also says that their value is backed by all the goods and services that FRNs are used to buy. In other words they are backed by nothing, because unlike gold or silver coin, all the goods and services lose most of their value as soon as you walk out the door with them. What a racket. LOL!!

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...l-tender.shtml

Here is a copy and paste from the statutes regarding legal tender. Can someone tell from this that FRNs are money?

Also, can anyone tell me where the word payment is used in the statute? Remember what Article I, Section 10 says:

"No States shall.....coin money.....make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts........"

I will reiterate that the states are prohibited from coining money. The phrase "make any Thing" is not talking about creating, but accepting or causing (making) any Thing but gold or silver coin to be a tender in payment of debts. Creation, or the coining of money, is reserved to the federal government under Article I Section 8, which states:

"The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures"

I will ask once again, if the states are prohibited by the Constitution from coining money and they are also prohibited from accepting any Thing but gold or silver coin a Tender in Payment of debt, then what is taking place here? FRNs are not gold or silver coin, but mere paper, evidence of debt, and the Constitution has never been repealed or amended regarding this issue. There can be only one conclusion and I will state once more until it is understood; the states are not accepting payment because they are prohibited by the Constitution from accepting anything other than gold or silver coin as Tender in Payment of debts. The States are accepting discharge, something altogether different from "Payment."

It amazes me how ignorant people are when it comes to the money and payment issue. People actually believe that what they buy with FRNs is actually their property. This is living in fantasy land. What you think is you are actually buying something with FRNs and you own that something. Tell me then, if you actually own it, please tell me how it can be taxed? Please show me in the law where this written? You are taxed because of the privilege you have been given of the use of debt instruments to discharge debt and not extinguish it by payment. You are using private credit which is a privilege extended to you by the federal reserve system. This might be hard for some to grasp, but once you do you will be outraged. This is one of the biggest frauds if not the biggest to be perpetrated on the American people since the foundation of this country. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!