Is Barter Taxable?
par...@gmail.com
me around my house, do I have to pay taxes on this if I bought him
pizza "in exchange” for his services?
Archmedes
I googled barter taxable and got 121,000 hits, more information than
you'll ever want to know.
par...@gmail.com
I'm hoping to find some legal reference as to why I would or would not
have to pay taxes on the value of the work in question.
par...@gmail.com
wrote:
> If a friend of mine who is a professional carpenter does some work for
> me around my house, do I have to pay taxes on this if I bought him
> pizza "in exchange” for his services?
I'd like to ask this question again with a few variations:
1. If a friend of mine who is a carpenter by profession does some work
on my house and I buy him a pizza “in exchange” for his services has
an accounting transaction just occurred? Do we each have to pay taxes
on the value of this exchange?
2. What if that person is my dad?
3. What if it’s an uncle? An in-law? A second cousin twice removed?
4. What if instead of a pizza I bought him passage on a cruise?
5. What if I gave him an old car that I owned outright?
6. What if I just gave him a hug?
7. What if I gave him a piece of paper that says “I promise to mow
your lawn.”?
8. What if I gave him a piece of paper that says “I promise to give
you $1,000 when I sell my house?”
9. What if I fixed this person’s computer while they were working on
my house?
10. What if I gave this gave this person a password to my Online Role-
Playing Game and let them take over my identity which I had
painstakingly earned 10,000,000 power points and could do all sorts of
cool tricks that only 10,000,000 power points can buy?
11. And finally, what if I didn’t give this person anything for their
services but later that same year it just so happened that I ended up
doing one or all of the above?
No joke. I’m really interested in understanding the answers to these
questions. All of the above have actually happened in my life, except
#10 because I don’t play role-playing games…at least not enough to
earn 10,000,000 power points.
Archmedes
>> If a friend of mine who is a professional carpenter does some work
>> for
>> me around my house, do I have to pay taxes on this if I bought him
>> pizza "in exchange” for his services?
> I'd like to ask this question again with a few variations:
That's a sound idea...just plug in the variation term in combination
with the original terms. For example, using barter taxable IOU drops
the hits from 121,000 to 3,730. You'll probably find some court
decisions in there as well. Good hunting!
Phil Marti
You don't seem to understand what barter, which is taxable income, is.
Barter would be your friend doing your carpentry in exchange for you, as a
professional lawn care provider, doing his lawn for a season. It's taxable
income to you both.
What you describe is not barter, it's a friend doing a friend a favor. It's
taxable income to neither of you.
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD
nat
On the assumption that you are asking about income taxes, you wouldn't
have any income but the carpenter would. Therefore, you owe no income
taxes.
nat
What? If the exchange results in income to at least one of the parties,
why can't a favor be income. The pizza is income to the carpenter.
par...@gmail.com
> "parl...@nospam.nospam" wrote:
Phil, thank you for making an intelligent reply.
Understanding what barter means and how an exchange of products or
services is considered taxable is the very reason for my posting.
Let's assume the following true statments:
1. My father owns a construction company and agrees to have his crew
over to my house and do a bunch of work...work that he would probably
be able to charge between $4,000 and $5,000 to someone else.
2. I own a professional web development company and agree to create a
website for my dad...work that I would probably be able to charge
between $4,000 and $5,000 to someone else.
My questions:
a. Does the above scenario represent a barter relationship between
myself and my father?
b. Do I have to pay taxes on the $4,000 to $5,000 that I received from
him?
c. Does he have to pay taxes on the $4,000 to $5,000 that he received
from me?
If the answer to any question a, b, or c above is "yes", does it
change if:
1. My dad simply agreed to do the work on my house in exchange for a
hug from his loving son.
2. I simply agreed to do the work for my dad in exchange for a hug
from my loving father.
Thanks, Ryan
par...@gmail.com
nat, can you please further explain why I would have no income in this
situation and why the carpenter would. If some of the repairs on my
house involved purchasing $500 worth of material, would I not have
received a monetary benefit? All the carpetner got from me was a
couple slices of pizza. Are you saying that he is legally obligated to
report his benefit as income while I am not?
Thanks, Ryan
Phil Marti
Understanding what barter means and how an exchange of products or
services is considered taxable is the very reason for my posting.
Let's assume the following true statments:
1. My father owns a construction company and agrees to have his crew
over to my house and do a bunch of work...work that he would probably
be able to charge between $4,000 and $5,000 to someone else.
2. I own a professional web development company and agree to create a
website for my dad...work that I would probably be able to charge
between $4,000 and $5,000 to someone else.
My questions:
a. Does the above scenario represent a barter relationship between
myself and my father?
b. Do I have to pay taxes on the $4,000 to $5,000 that I received from
him?
c. Does he have to pay taxes on the $4,000 to $5,000 that he received
from me?
Yes on all fronts.
If the answer to any question a, b, or c above is "yes", does it
change if:
1. My dad simply agreed to do the work on my house in exchange for a
hug from his loving son.
2. I simply agreed to do the work for my dad in exchange for a hug
from my loving father.
No on both fronts. Substance trumps the story you gin up to try to get
around tax law.
Phil Marti
> What? If the exchange results in income to at least one of the parties,
> why can't a favor be income. The pizza is income to the carpenter.
So, we disagree. And yet the world spins on.
D. Stussy
Jackne...@gmail.com
If you do, you're an absolute bonehead.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
par...@nospam.nospam wrote:
> On May 16, 9:40 am, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>parl...@nospam.nospam wrote:
>>
>>>If a friend of mine who is a professional carpenter does some work for
>>>me around my house, do I have to pay taxes on this if I bought him
>>>pizza "in exchange” for his services?
>>
>>On the assumption that you are asking about income taxes, you wouldn't
>>have any income but the carpenter would. Therefore, you owe no income
>>taxes.
>
>
> nat, can you please further explain why I would have no income in this
> situation and why the carpenter would.
Purchasing services does not result in income if it is an even exchange.
If you purchase $20 worth of services with $20 of your capital, you
have no gain/income. However, if the carpenter gets $20 worth of pizza
for his services that he would normally charge $20, he realizes $20 in
income.
> If some of the repairs on my
> house involved purchasing $500 worth of material, would I not have
> received a monetary benefit?
Then that would be a gift.
> All the carpetner got from me was a
> couple slices of pizza. Are you saying that he is legally obligated to
> report his benefit as income while I am not?
>
> Thanks, Ryan
$500 of material + labor for $5 worth of pizza?
That's a gift, but no income tax for either party.
nat
Phil Marti wrote:
> "nat" wrote:
>
>
>>What? If the exchange results in income to at least one of the parties,
>>why can't a favor be income. The pizza is income to the carpenter.
>
>
> So, we disagree. And yet the world spins on.
>
That sure was enlightening.
par...@gmail.com
> Answer: Yes. Report on form 1099-B.
On May 16, 10:01 pm, "D. Stussy" <s...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> Answer: Yes. Report on form 1099-B.
D. Stussy,
I'm having a hard time understanding why you and Phil claim that my
scenario results in taxable income. If the repairs to my house help
me to sell the house for a higher price then am I not in a sense
paying taxes when I sell? I shouldn't have to pay taxes on both the
front and back side of the transaction, right?
If I open a 1952 box of Topps baseball cards and discover that I
posses a Mickie Mantle rookie card, I'm not immediately taxed on the
$1.6 M of value. It's not until I sell the card that I am taxed.
Also, if it were 1995 just before Mickey died and I bought him a drink
in exchange for his signature on my card, I again should not be
immediately taxed on the extra $1 M that he just 'bartered' to me. It
would be absurde if the above events resulted in me having to pay
taxes on either $1 M or $2.6 M. If this is what the tax laws state,
then something is seriously wrong with our government; Tomas Kinkade
couldn't even give his mom a painting without bankrupting her from the
tax liability.
-Ryan
Phil Marti
<< I'm having a hard time understanding why you and Phil claim that my
scenario results in taxable income. >>
You've given so many scenarios it's hard to keep track, but if you're going
to attribute something to me, make it clear what statement you're referring
to. The only time I've indicated I saw taxable income was the carpentry for
lawn care barter that I mentioned in my first, and only thus far, response.
(This will be my last.)
Barter income is income because it is. Again, see IRS Publication 525. If
you want a different answer ask a different question.
<< If the repairs to my house help
me to sell the house for a higher price then am I not in a sense
paying taxes when I sell? I shouldn't have to pay taxes on both the
front and back side of the transaction, right? >>
Why not? You paid taxes on the income that became your down payment. You
paid taxes on the income that became the principal portion of your mortgage
payments. You paid taxes on the income that went to maintaining the home.
Most of your down payment, plus what you spend over the years on capital
improvements, is "basis," and when you sell you subtract basis from net
selling price to determine gain. Only the gain is potentially taxed. See
Publications 523, 550 and 551. If you bartered for a capital improvement to
your home you'd have the taxable income, but you'd also have increased
basis.
As for you and Mickey, if you're a professional B-Girl and he gives you a
signed rookie card in lieu of your customary charge, you have taxable income
equal to the value of the card at the time proffered as payment. OTOH, if
Mickey's your next-door neighbor and he signs a card for you, you have no
taxable income. OTOH, if Mickey signs your card at a signing show he has
income equal to what you paid, and you have increased basis in the card
equal to what you paid.
Bye now.
par...@gmail.com
Thank you for mentioning IRS Publication 525, and others. I like
knowing the source of information and I'll take a look at these to
learn what I can.
It makes sense to me that what I pay into my home becomes basis. If
I'm going to pay taxes on $4,000 worth of improvements to my house
that my Dad did on the weekend while I fixed his computer and created
his website then I want to make sure that this goes towards my basis
so that when I sell my house for a profit I'm not stuck paying taxes
on it again. I can deal with that concept, but what I don't like is
the idea of paying taxes on the same money twice.
Please understand that the purpose of my asking so many questions is
to try and better understand how this works. In my mind, my Dad
helping me fix some things in my house was just a gift and my creating
him a website and fixing his computer was also a gift. There was
never any "agreement" that we signed which put us in a barter
relationship. I'm still not convinced that my Dad nor I have to count
our gifts to each other as taxable income because in my mind it just
doesn't make sense. I don't mean any disrespect to yo, Phil, you're
obviously a smart guy but in researching this question, I found a
similar situation where a Dad had given his son $14,000 to help buy
his house. The question was whether or not he had to count this gift
as income and pay taxes on it. Many uninformed persons answered "No,
you never have to pay taxes on a gift".. A seemingly very well
informed person answered "Yes, if the amount is greater than $12,000
then you must file form XXX.. and cited an IRS document." However,
reading further through the list of answers, I found what I believe to
be ultimately correct and and in the best interest of the questioner.
This answerer said "No, you don't have to count it as income because
you can simply state that your Mother gave you $7,000 and your Father
gave you $7,000". This person took the time to understand the
situation and consider the requirements of the law and also the
reality of the situation and provided a solution that is both honest
and legal.
Thank you Phil for your advice and the time you've spent helping me
find answers to my questions. I really greatly appreciate it and wish
you the best. I'll read through the documents you cited and in the
end post my conclusion here for the benefit of others that may come
across this thread.
Best regards,
Ryan
On May 19, 5:39 am, "Phil Marti" <prm20...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "parl...@nospam.nospam"
>
Phil Marti
<< I found a
similar situation where a Dad had given his son $14,000 to help buy
his house. >>
The fact that parents and a house were involved doesn't make it similar.
<< The question was whether or not he had to count this gift
as income and pay taxes on it. Many uninformed persons answered "No,
you never have to pay taxes on a gift".. >>
No, those were correctly informed people. Gifts are never taxable income to
the recipient. Period. See that handy Pub 525.
<< A seemingly very well
informed person answered "Yes, if the amount is greater than $12,000
then you must file form XXX.. and cited an IRS document." >>
Either time has garbled the information in your mind or you didn't consult
that document to disabuse yourself of an incorrect answer. The $12,000
figure you refer to has to do with gift tax, not income tax, which is an
entirely different creature. Gift tax is the responsibility of the giver,
not the recipient.
<< However,
reading further through the list of answers, I found what I believe to
be ultimately correct and and in the best interest of the questioner.
This answerer said "No, you don't have to count it as income because
you can simply state that your Mother gave you $7,000 and your Father
gave you $7,000". >>
No, that's how the donors get around gift tax. See Pub 950. It's not
taxable income to the recipient whether gift tax is due or not.
par...@gmail.com
Gotcha. Thank you very much for helping me understand the differences
between my scenario and the one involving the $14,000 gift. There is
a lot of misinformation on the Internet so that's why I decided to
post a question and get some feedback from real people in the first
place.
If I might ask you one more question...why can't the work my Dad did
on my house just be considered a gift to me? And the various work
I've done for him on his website and computer be my gift to him? The
fact that I donate my time and energy and in some cases even my money
to my Dad is in no way related to the fact or extent to which he
donates his time, energy, and money to me.
(The whole reason this got brought up in the first place is that we
had a customer want to barter with us for computer services and in
looking into how this would work and how it would be accounted for I
became curious as to how all of this applies to other areas of my
life...when I mow the lawn for my Grandma and she gives me a piece of
pie...when I help a friend move and they buy me pizza...etc.)
Thanks,
Ryan
On May 19, 12:38 pm, "Phil Marti" <prm20...@verizon.net> wrote:
Phil Marti
<< If I might ask you one more question...why can't the work my Dad did
on my house just be considered a gift to me? And the various work
I've done for him on his website and computer be my gift to him? The
fact that I donate my time and energy and in some cases even my money
to my Dad is in no way related to the fact or extent to which he
donates his time, energy, and money to me. >>
It boils down to intent, which comes back to facts and circumstances. Oddly
enough, much of tax law, which you'd think would be really nailed down,
comes down to "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...." And the
way you initially presented the scenario it was clearly a quacking barter.
knews4...@yahoo.com
Exchange of your labor for anything of value is not taxable under
fundamental law.
Exchanging your labor is not taxable by excise as it is not a
"privilege."
Exchange of labor is only taxable by apportionment.
knews4...@yahoo.com
None of what you are exchanging for your labor of adding to your house
or "stepping" up to the plate and buying the original cards, holding
them, getting the autograph, paying rent to store them for years,
marketing them, managing the funds you get for them in the end, are
all the final payment for your labor.
They are not a gain that the government has a right to tax.
You finally exchanged your risk of buying the cards and walking up to
Mickey for they autograph.
The government has no right to any of it as long as you don't sell it
off shore.
Don't buy this crap that your labor has no basis.
cpt banjo
> Exchange of your labor for anything of value is not taxable under
> fundamental law.
Cite the law that says so.
> Exchanging your labor is not taxable by excise as it is not a
> "privilege."
Cite the law says that ALL excises must involve privileges, and then
explain how the Supreme Court upheld the gift tax (which doesn't
involve a privilege) as an excise.
> Exchange of labor is only taxable by apportionment.
Cite the law that says so, and then explain away all of the cases that
have upheld the income tax as a tax that doesn't need to be
apportioned.
Archmedes
"cpt banjo" wrote:
Here are some cites 4 chewy to chew on.
These are people who really believed in the tax protestor literature,
who followed it to the letter, and then was either sent to prison for
tax evasion, or sanctioned or fined for asserting a stupid theory in
court, or had some goofy case against the IRS dismissed, etc. These
cases demonstrate conclusively that irrespective of what the scam
artists who sell the tax protestor materials tell you, the only thing
that will happen is that you will get creamed by the IRS in court. Oh,
and you will also have lost the money you paid for the materials, your
defense attorney's fees, the value of your lost time fighting the IRS,
and your reputation as a sensible individual.
Recent Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
*
United States v. Schiff; "America's leading untax expert" is
convicted of three counts of attempted tax evasion and one count of
willful failure to file. Some expert!
*
United States v. Schiff; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*
Schiff v. United States; Schiff tries for a reduced or corrected
sentence on the grounds that his fee speech and free association rights
were being violated, and that by filing a tax returns he was being
compelled to testify against him self. He loses, again.
*
Schiff v. Cox; Schiff files a Writ of Habeas Corpus to try to get
out of jail. He loses this too.
*
In re Schiff; Schiff also files a Writ of Mandamus. It is denied
too.
*
Tully v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 1999-422; No. 16008-98 (December
27, 1999)
Tax evasion promoter who established exempt organizations for
individuals was liable for the fraud and failure-to-file penalties, and
on its own motion, assessed the maximum section 6673 penalty for abuse
and delay.
*
Snyder v. Department of State Revenue; Cause No. 49T10-9806-TA-70
(January 21, 2000) Argued that wages are not income under either Indiana
law or the Internal Revenue Code.
*
Bibbs v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-348; No. 99-5117
(January 11, 2000)
Argued that as Ohio private citizens they are not subject to U.S.
income taxation.
*
Scoville v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-355; No.
94-0936-CV-W-6 (December 3, 1999)
Court held that insurance proceeds payable to wife of tax
protestor could by levied upon by the IRS since the couple had
structured their affairs specifically to avoid the IRS's lien for back
taxes owed.
*
Greene v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-26; No. 15225-98 (January
21, 2000)
Argued that the federal income tax laws apply only to employees of
government-related entities.
*
Treglowne v. United States; 84 AFTR2d Par. 99-5618; No.
99-CV-70323-DT (November 17, 1999)
Argued that he was not required to provide incriminating
information to the IRS under the Fifth Amendment.
*
Miller v. United States; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-390; No. 98-4021
(August 4, 1999)
Aruged that the income tax established under the Internal Revenue
Code ("IRC") does not apply to him because, inter alia, there is no
statute or regulation that makes him "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian"
liable under the IRC; as "A PEOPLE, A Private Christian" he did not earn
"wages" or "gross income" as defined in the IRC or regulations; and he
had no taxable "income" according to the meaning of the term and the
Supreme Court's definition of the term.
*
McQuatters v. Commissioner; T.C. Memo. 2000-34; No. 16871-98
(February 3, 2000)
Argued, among other things, that letters addressed to "Dear
Taxpayer" were fraudulent, and that "income" cannot be defined -- In
addition to losing, he additionally received a $5,000 fine from the
court for making frivolous arguments.
*
House v. Commissioner; 85 AFTR2d Par. 2000-419; No. 2:99-2428-23AJ
(January 10, 2000) Aruged that they are not "persons" within the meaning
of the IRS statutes as they are instead "citizens of the Sovereign State
of South Carolina" and cannot be taxed by the United States
Other Losses by the Tax Protestor Idiots:
*
United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
Argued that the law requiring them to pay taxes and file returns
is unclear.
*
United States v. Ross, No. 93-1010 (7th Cir. 1995)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Indiana
is not part of the United States, and because there were no regulations
issued to implement the criminal statute under which he was convicted.
*
United States v. Gardell, No. 93-1916 (1st Cir. 1994)
Argued that he has no obligation to pay taxes because he has "the
Status of Freeman and . . . has no Contractual, Quasi-Contractual or
implied agreements with the Federal Government."
*
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
Argued that the district court did not have "inland jurisdiction,"
that wages are untaxable, that the income tax is voluntary, and that
they were "Free Citizens of the Republic of Minnesota.
*
United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over "sovereign
citizens," that he was not a "taxpayer" under the federal tax laws, and
that the word "includes" is a term of restriction, not expansion.
*
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)
Argued that there is no law imposing a tax on income, that
"freeborn" state citizens are exempt from income tax, and that an
individual is not a"person" under the tax code.
*
United States v. Saunders, 951 F.2d 1065 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that IRS summonses are invalid without an OMB control
number, that the IRS lacks authority to issue and enforce summonses
because no Treasury Delegation Orders were published in the Federal
Register, and that the district court has no jurisdiction.
*
United States v. Hicks, 947 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1991)
Argued that he should be acquitted of tax evasion because the IRS
failed to display OMB numbers on Form 1040 and because the IRS failed to
publish Form 1040 in the Federal Register.
*
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2nd Cir. 1990)
Argued that federal reserve notes are not taxable income, that the
Constitution does not authorize an income tax, and that tax assessments
are takings.
*
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1990)
Argued that the IRS failed to comply with the publication
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.
*
United States v. White, No. 89-10533 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that there is no law requiring him, as "a sovereign citizen
of the state of Nevada," to file income tax returns.
*
United States v. McDonald, No. 88-5239 (9th Cir. 1990)
Argued that as a "white, natural born, state citizen," the income
tax does not apply to him, that he is not a "person" or a "resident,"
and that the district court lacked jurisdiction.
*
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States.
*
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*
United States v. Genger, No. 87-1043 (9th Cir. 1988)
Argued that the district court erroneously exercised admiralty
jurisdiction over him, and that filing a federal tax return violated his
First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion.
*
McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987)
Argued that the federal income tax is a contract, and that he
didn't owe any tax because he rescinded the contract.
*
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are not income under the tax code, and that the
income tax is a taking.
*
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
*
Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902 (10th Cir. 1986)
Argued that wages are exchanges of property rather than taxable
income.
*
Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all
financial information from his income tax return.
*
Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985)
Irwin Schiff offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that the
tax code requires individuals to pay income tax.
*
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985)
Argued that he owed no taxes because he had not obtained any
privilege from a governmental agency.
*
Charczuk v. Commissioner, 771 F.2d 471 (10th Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Constitution does not authorize an income tax,
that there is no law imposing an income tax, and that the definition of
"income" is vague.
*
Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
Argued that Congress does not possess the constitutional authority
to impose a "direct" tax, that no law makes any individual liable to pay
a tax or excise on "taxable income," and that "income" has no defined
meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite.
*
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984)
Argued that they are exempt from federal taxation because they are
"natural individuals" who have not "requested, obtained or exercised any
privilege from an agency of government."
*
United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238 (9th Cir. 1984)
Argued that Federal Reserve notes cannot be taxed, that the
Sixteenth Amendment only allows taxing income from "sources," not
persons, and that the word "includes" is a term of limitation, not
expansion.
*
United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid
exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory
self-incrimination.
*
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a
contract for government services, that the district court had no
jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth
Amendment rights.
*
McCann v. Greenway, 952 F. Supp. 647 (W.D. Mo. 1997)
Argued that a state court lacked jurisdiction over him because the
flag in the courtroom had yellow fringe on it, thus converting it into
the "maritime flag of war." A Favorite!
*
United States v. Hartman, 915 F. Supp. 1227 (M.D. Fla. 1996)
Argued that payment of income taxes is voluntary, and that
summonses from the I.R.S. cannot be enforced without implementing
regulations.
*
United States v. Rhodes, 921 F. Supp. 261 (M.D. Penn. 1996)
Argued that "income" under the Sixteenth Amendment is limited to
profit proceeding from property, and that he is not a "person" under the
Internal Revenue Code.
*
United States v. Greenstreet, 912 F. Supp. 224 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
Filed UCC-1 financing statements against federal employees. Argued
that as a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen
of the Republic/State of Texas," the district court lacked jurisdiction,
that the case should be moved to "Our One Supreme Court for the Republic
of Texas," and that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of
admiralty.
*
Albers v. Internal Revenue Service, No. 95-3068 (D. Neb. 1996)
Argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that they were
non-resident aliens because Nebraska is not part of the United States,
and that they did not fall within the provisions of the tax code.
*
Valldejuli v. Social Security Admin., No. 94-10051 (N.D. Fla.
1994)
Argued that he was fraudulently induced into signing a "contract"
with the Social Security Administration, and that he is a natural
sovereign citizen of the United States who is not subject to the Social
Security system.
*
United States v. Sato, 704 F. Supp. 816 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Argued that Congress' power to tax does not extend beyond the
District of Columbia and other federal areas, and that the Sixteenth
Amendment was never ratified lawfully.
*
United States v. House, 617 F. Supp 237 (W.D. Mich. 1985)
Argued that the Sixteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
*
Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ind.
1984)
Argued that the IRS was not created by "positive law," that the
tax code does not apply to "sovereign citizens," that the tax code is a
bill of attainder, and that the district court lacks jurisdiction.
*
Snyder v. United States, 596 F. Supp. 240 (N.D. Ind. 1984)
Argued that the I.R.S. is a private corporation and not part of
the government of the United States.
*
McKinney v. Regan, 599 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. La. 1984)
Argued that as a "Sovereign Individual," the "Common Law of the
United States of America, a Republic" protected him from penalties for
filing a frivolous tax return.
*
Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
Argued that a land patent from the United States conveyed clear
title and no one may encumber the property with mortgages, thereby
preventing foreclosure.
*
Hilgeford v. Peoples Bank, 776 F.2d 176 (7th Cir. 1985)
Argued that drafting and signing a "federal land patent" grants an
interest superior to that of a bank trying to foreclose.
*
Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mortgage Co., 612 F. Supp.
253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
Argued that court should dismiss foreclosure action on the basis
of a "land patent" which he drafted, executed, and recorded in the
County Recorder of Deeds Office.
*
Britt v. Federal Land Bank Assoc. of St. Louis, 505 N.E. 2d 387
(Ill. Ct. App. 1987)
Argued that creation of land patents required that the bank return
foreclosed property to possession of plaintiffs.
*
United States ex rel. Verdone v. Circuit Court for Taylor County,
851 F. Supp. 345 (W.D. Wisc. 1993)
Argued that the traffic laws infringed on his right to travel and
that enforcement of the traffic laws constituted a conspiracy.
*
City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986)
Argued that a law requiring that drivers have licenses
unconstitutionally restricts one's right to travel.
*
State v. Gibson, 697 P.2d 1216 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Argued that as a "free man" the motor vehicle laws do not apply to
him without his consent.
*
State v. Turk, 643 P.2d 224 (Mont. 1982)
Argued that Montana's compulsory automobile liability insurance
statutes are unconstitutional.
nat
knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Don't buy this crap that your labor has no basis.
I certainly wouldn't buy the crap that chewy has anything intelligent to
say.
Jackne...@gmail.com
Cite the law that says cpt banjo is either a) a captain, or b) a
banjo . . .
Ahhh . . . Gotcha!
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote
> You finally exchanged your risk of buying the cards
> and walking up to Mickey for they autograph.
Not to worry, Disney cards signed by the mouse don't go up in value at all.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Paul Thomas, CPA
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Exchange of your labor for anything of
> value is not taxable under fundamental law.
Under tax law it IS a taxable - or at least a reportable - event
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA