need good advice from a professional accredited attorney

[indio007]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

good point. certain conversions are what triggers "gross income"; but the method is always a hook, like tax#'s etc. If the conversion is registered accordingly then the presumption is naturally in favor of revenue.

This is why a missing piece of info here is the need to stamp every document with some kind of qualifier "loan proceeds" or whatever.

Thats what structures a transaction, since someone without opinions could land tomorrow and just see things moving around, like things do every day 9 times out of 10, without creating a taxable event.




Just by way of analogy- sales tax forms ("asset conversion register") like those for real estate, in my experience always contain several exclusions from tax. Reasons that one must check to claim.

Including, "secured transaction" (that's what it says!) and "transfer to trust".

You can probably just write setoff diagonally and sign as the principal and creditor. Creditor has a presumed right to setoff any debt. The right to setoff is above UCC liens in order of payment in bankruptcy. It is purely administrative.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00066.htm


Check so of these cases out


When Does Setoff Occur? Setoff occurs when the creditor (1) decides to setoff, (2) takes affirmative action, and (3) it's records show setoff.Citizens Bank v. Strumpf, 116 S. Ct. 286 (1995)

(setoff is accomplished when a creditor gives sufficient evidence of intent to make a setoff; retention of funds by a creditor is sufficient); United States v. Reynolds, 764 F.2d 1004 (4th Cir. 1985).

(proof of claim not prerequisite to retention of setoff right); Willcox v. Goess, 92 F.2d 8, 16 (2d Cir. 1937)

"A creditor asserting setoff is not requesting distribution from the bankruptcy estate res but is seeking to satisfy a debt owed to it by the debtor to the extent of the debt it owes to the debtor. Setoff permits parties to 'net' their respective obligations."). Contra In re Town & Country Home Nursing Servs., 963 F.2d 1146, 1150-51 (9th Cir. 1991)


Pretty informative i think Here's a cite I saw which is unrelated really but equally informative about debt instruments and the fact the only discharge debt.

This is consistent with the principle that, although a discharge extinguishes the personal liability of the debtor, discharge does not extinguish the actual debts. Discharge of the debtor does not eradicate in rem liability which may exist against assets, including monies. See, e.g., Dewsnup v. Timm, 112 S. Ct. 773, 778 (1992)

Very strange ruling I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

[courttroubles]

I guess I must be STUPID. I understand your relative received a W-2 income statement for 100,000k. This means your relative obviously makes decent wages for the work he performs in my book.

With this type of reporting on a W2--GROSS INCOME he still get' s to take DEDUCTIONS. Once this is done you have NET INCOME. I reviewed the postings and there's been no itemized listing given to come up with even a basis of an amount to PROTEST PAYING. Or have I missed something somewhere.

Then if he really has a PROTEST to paying what is it? Is there qualifying reasons to protest this amount? Medical illness, unexpected accidents, loss of income in household?

I'm not an Attorney. I'm not attempting to give legal advice. But FIGHT a FIGHT that may be WON. I KNOW other's will have a different opinion but to me it's all in the PICTURE you MAKE of the CIRCUMSTANCES on BOTH SIDES.

Regardless of everyone's feelings that I've been biased on I've effectively WON various FINANCIAL BATTLES. But by HONESTY. The project I'm on now has been the LONGEST most EDUCATIONAL project to date.

Also, you never pay taxes on a LOAN. Earned INCOME is just that EARNED INCOME. That you PAY TAXES ON. How you NEGOTIATE the final amount you PAY or OWE is how well you PAINT A PICTURE. At least in my book.

So NOW I'm waiting PROOF of ALL of everyone's good valid information.

I even saw a good side to LAWDOG EARLIER...And in actuality I HOPE AND PRAY WESLEY SNIPES get's out of the 3 yrs in JAIL....That just has to be DEMORALIZING if you ask me...To make the kind of FRNS he has to end up with possibly going to Jail. He'll Always be One of the BEST ACTORS there is!

Also on this remark

This is consistent with the principle that, although a discharge extinguishes the personal liability of the debtor, discharge does not extinguish the actual debts. Discharge of the debtor does not eradicate in rem liability which may exist against assets, including monies. See, e.g., Dewsnup v. Timm, 112 S. Ct. 773, 778 (1992)


This is especially true in Real Estate cases. Example: Someone files chp 7, gives up home. Mortgagee doesn't do a foreclosure so home remains in owners name. As Title hasn't changed. So their still responsible for the upkeep of property and taxes. There's alot of times these Lenders just let them go to tax sale then try to recoup monies. If there's anything left over from the tax sale. Usually it may some dilpated building or one an Attorney screwed up on somewhere by not paying the taxes for the corporation that just had to FORECLOSE.

Just my 2 cents,

God Bless,

Kathy

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by courttroubles

I guess I must be STUPID. I understand your relative received a W-2 income statement for 100,000k. This means your relative obviously makes decent wages for the work he performs in my book.

No you are not STUPID. However you may have misunderstood the situation.

your relative obviously makes wages

That's where the mistake lies. The only obvious item here is that he received a W2 statement. That is a very limited information by nature- merely a data entry by some private accountant. Just cuz Ms Whoever chose to make that category on some form dont make it true- she hasn't even got 1st hand knowledge anyway, and she is not a legal authority to give an expert opinion that might be taken as evidence in court.

The w2 is just a business record, and a one-sided private opinion. I believe only a qualified employee of the U.S. Treasury Dept has the authority to issue a "general tax assessment", which may be grounds to claim someone received 'gross income'. This report must be signed under penalty of perjury and has substantial procedural requirements to properly issue.

Also, you never pay taxes on a LOAN. Earned INCOME is just that EARNED INCOME. That you PAY TAXES ON. How you NEGOTIATE the final amount you PAY or OWE is how well you PAINT A PICTURE. At least in my book.

See- I said you weren't STUPID. This is a very good and essential point. By dragging the feet every step of the way there is a good chance of NEGOTIATING a better outcome- maybe pay 5% instead of 50%.

And you are again totally right- its all about "how well to paint a picture"...the system tries to frame us over and again with their fake presumptions so we need to overcome with a better story. It is indeed, all pictures, ie: characterizations. That's why I initially listed a number of alternative scenarios ("pictures, scenes") to "gross income".

We never do pay tax on loans- so all transactions could very well be limited to lending and borrowing. And that means NO GROSS INCOME.

With this type of reporting on a W2--GROSS INCOME he still get' s to take DEDUCTIONS. Once this is done you have NET INCOME. I reviewed the postings and there's been no itemized listing given to come up with even a basis of an amount to PROTEST PAYING. Or have I missed something somewhere.

My relative denies the W2 itself. He demurs to their unqualified assertion of "received gross income, wages/salary item". (a demurral has the effect of a denial)

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

This is consistent with the principle that, although a discharge extinguishes the personal liability of the debtor, discharge does not extinguish the actual debts. Discharge of the debtor does not eradicate in rem liability which may exist against assets, including monies. See, e.g., Dewsnup v. Timm, 112 S. Ct. 773, 778 (1992)

Originally Posted by indio007

Very strange ruling I'm still trying to wrap my head around it

.

I get from the above cite that while a given debtor may be freed from further obligations, the "in rem" principle still applies: the right to foreclose on assets, which include money as well. In rem being an attack on the thing, not the person.

Some have claimed that we are seized "in rem" in criminal cases- our body is 'taken into custody' and lodged in the warehouse.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

..............

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by KarenM

As a matter of fact, the characterization of the receipt of $100,000 as "paid for that money with equal value" is specifically documented by the IRS as a frivolous argument, subject to penalty and sanctions.

Uh-oh maybe i make bad spells and magic word go wrong. Need new witchdoctor.

Anyway, "I bought the money" is clear. Where'd the money come from? I BOUGHT IT. I paid for it like anything else.

Another example- invest efforts into a company and receive participation share. Convert participation into cash. That money is from the sale of capital.

(aka "bought the money with my capital")

So the question would be what was the basis cost for that capital? I had it, it was mine, if it was stolen or damaged it would be a loss. What did I pay for it? IRRELEVANT!!! The manner of accession to that particular piece of wealth is not the issue. Whats at stake is the accession to the cash I bought. I bought it with property. I paid for $'x' with an equal basis cost- what I gave was equal to what I got.

I can pay for things with money or in equivalent "fair-market value". I buy groceries at the store and pay with money. Did I get a "gross income" of the 'fair-market value' of the groceries? This was an accession to wealth. I received groceries.

a=b...then b=a

stands to reason. Its either "gross income" in both directions or it's neither. If there is 'revenue' there must be an artificial reason, not a strict economic or mathematic one.

Another way to look at this is my investment is collateral for borrowed money. I receive "loan proceeds" backed up by my investment in the enterprise; that person then forecloses and takes the deposit free and clear. Even-Steven.

Or my investment has been lost to me (I cant access it in any enjoyable way) so the mutual-assurance policy kicks in- and I get compensation for damages, as sure as if I get paid when when someone hits my car or a tree falls on my house.

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Uh-oh maybe i make bad spells and magic word go wrong. Need new witchdoctor.

Sorry. Source of witch doctors kaput. Picture enclosed.

a=b...then b=a

stands to reason. Its either "gross income" in both directions or it's neither. If there is 'revenue' there must be an artificial reason, not a strict economic or mathematic one.

Author: Scisco, L. D.
Title: “The Plantation Type of Colony.”

The labor of the colonists was pledged to the company for a term of years, being at the disposal of the company’s governor in return for maintenance and future dividends.2 While the word “servant” is seldom applied to the company’s colonists, probably because they were technically stock-holders, nevertheless they were really hired employees and treated as such. It is true, then, that private property in labor was absent.

2 For terms given colonists: Force, Tracts, I. “Nova Britannia,” 23-24; also Brown, Genesis of the United States, I. 249, 253, 426. For management of labor: Force, Tracts, III. “‘True Declaration,” p. 20, and “Laws Divine,” pp. 15-16; also Brown, Genesis, I. 491-493.


If a United States adventurer has a contract to receive maintenance or dividend payments from Congress in the future (disability or retirement payments) then everything the adventurer earns (gross income) can be measured to produce the number (net income) upon which a share might be extracted to support government (tax) and a share extracted to support the older adventurers. Your making an assumption of private property in labor as if it was your body. Sorry ladies, it isn't your body. If an individual does not hold title to his own labor then anything acquired is gain and revenue and income.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by amenmesse

If a United States adventurer has a contract to receive maintenance or dividend payments from Congress in the future (disability or retirement payments) then everything the adventurer earns (gross income) can be measured

Right. And the point of this thread is how to deny/overcome/rebut/challenge/switch-out-of "gross income".

Your making an assumption of private property in labor as if it was your body. Sorry ladies, it isn't your body. If an individual does not hold title to his own labor then anything acquired is gain and revenue and income.

Even if we are "u.s. adventurers" about 90% of all transactions are routinely excluded from

gain and revenue and income

Everything acquired is NOT gross income and we all do this probably everyday, like buying groceries. I realize we dont necessarily own our labor without encumbrance, but the system is so flexible that it now comes down to accounting claims.

I might be a McDonalds franchisee, but if I sell my daughters home-made cookies on the side that's not part my "franchise revenue".

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Right. And the point of this thread is how to deny/overcome/rebut/challenge/switch-out-of "gross income"...........
I might be a McDonalds franchisee, but if I sell my daughters home-made cookies on the side that's not part my "franchise revenue".

That is correct, the cookies are not a part of the franchise proceeds. But, in the Roman common law the pauper was required to hand over to the patron all proceeds acquired. I forget which source, Mommsen or Gibbons, The History of Rome. This is where FDR's welfare state operates, to get to the cookies, and it removes any legal duty for specific peformance on the part of the Fed. They can take but there is no duty to give, except by grace. Cradle to grave care creates a relationship called commendo (google), "that what is put in care of". See the Sioux Chief Sitting Bull for a history on commendoism.

Remedy wise is the accusor privateering and if so is the papier in order? Admiralty deals with ships, and by subleting enforcement the government is removed from liabilities or treaty duties etc.
As a side note you didn't notice the upside down cross on the templars shield, a symbol for satanic worship?

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
The W2 may have likely been born out of a W4 contract. All the arguing about what is or isnt gross income without knowing about the significance of how one endorses one's paychecks or the like might be useless and potentially trouble-making huff. I wouldnt touch a W4..maybe a W8.