Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

    US coins stamped with a face value are maybe the ONLY Constitutional legal tender around. yet now
    the IRS/Gov't wants to prove that 'legal tender' is NOT legal tender. Go figure...

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html

    May. 26, 2009
    Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

    Employer's gold, silver payroll standard may bring hard time

    'This is a case about money, greed and fraud' :eek:

    By JOAN WHITELY
    LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

    Robert Kahre, who owns numerous construction businesses in Las Vegas, is standing trial on 57 counts of income tax evasion,
    tax fraud and criminal conspiracy. If convicted on most counts, he could live out his life in prison.

    But attorney William Cohan paints Kahre as an American "hero" who believes his payroll system helped keep the U.S. monetary
    system sound, and was also a form of legal tax avoidance.

    A self-made entrepreneur, Kahre, 48, paid his workers in gold and silver coin, and said they could go by
    the coins' face value -- rather than the much higher market value of their precious metal content -- for federal tax purposes.

    He did not withhold taxes from their wages, and he provided the same payroll system to 35 outside clients, which were other local businesses.


    Judge David Ezra is presiding over the criminal trial, which began May 19 in U.S. District Court. Joining Kahre as defendants are his longtime
    girlfriend, a sister who works in his businesses, and a former business assistant.

    Three of the four present defendants were among the nine people tried on similar charges two years ago, but no convictions resulted. In the
    2007 trial, four others of the nine defendants, including Kahre's mother, were entirely acquitted
    . Two individuals were only partially acquitted,
    but dropped from the indictment that forms the basis for the trial before Ezra.

    This time around, the only new defendant is Danille Cline, Kahre's girlfriend of 19 years, and the stay-at-home mother of his four children. The
    government claims she obstructed the Internal Revenue Service by allowing Kahre to place several homes in her name, thus attempting to conceal
    his assets.

    Cline's former brother-in-law, Thomas Browne, also was indicted this time, for his role as broker in some of the real estate transactions, but has
    since reached a plea bargain. He is expected to testify against the defendants.

    "This is a case about money, greed and fraud." The line appeared on screen in court during the government's opening statement by Christopher
    Maietta, a trial lawyer from the Washington, D.C., office of the Department of Justice.

    According to the government, Kahre and others concocted a fraudulent cash payroll "scheme" and then peddled it to other Las Vegas contractors.
    Defendants did not report to the IRS any payments made to workers, "either at the true amount or at the bogus amount, ... being the face value of
    the coin or coins," according to the indictment.

    The now-suspended payroll service handled about $114 million over six years, according to court records. Between 17 and 25 percent of that went
    to Kahre or his workers; the rest went to the 35 client businesses to pay their workers, court records show.

    The government did not indict most of the outside businesses or their personnel as co-conspirators with Kahre; although on May 6, Daniel McCartan
    of Action Concrete, which was one of Kahre's payroll clients, was finally sentenced in connection with a plea agreement reached in December 2006.
    McCartan received five months in prison and five months of home detention for one count of tax evasion.

    Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors, so he did not have to withhold taxes for them. His six businesses are in the
    trades of painting, drywall, tiling, plumbing, heating-cooling and electrical work.

    Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are
    entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below
    the threshold for filing a federal tax return.


    Earlier cases on the question of how to value gold or silver coins have focused on collectible coins that had been pulled from circulation but still have
    value as property, according to the defense. Kahre used coins minted after 1985, which are allowed to circulate.

    "It's not whether what Mr. Kahre did was legal under the law," defense attorney Michael Kennedy told the jury in his opening statement. "It's
    whether he believed what he did was legal," in the absence of explicit instructions by the IRS -- on its Web site, in its publications or in response to
    written correspondence from Kahre -- on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins.


    "We're not here to determine if moneys are owed," said Kennedy on behalf of his client, Lori Kahre, who had relied on her brother's tax theory. A tax
    mistake is different from a tax crime, so the IRS can still use administrative channels to force the defendants to pay back taxes, Kennedy has noted
    in the past.

    A sincere, but mistaken understanding of the tax-filing process is different from adopting a "pretextual" belief system in order to dodge taxes, Ezra
    acknowledged in court Wednesday.

    Cohan described Kahre's payroll system as a "boycott of the Federal Reserve." :roflmao2: But when the lawyer attempted to elaborate on
    Kahre's view that the nation has debased its paper currency by abandoning its former gold standard, Ezra added, "We're not here to convince the
    jury that the ... (U.S.) monetary system belongs to an international cabal."

  • #2
    Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

    A line from the OJ trial, years ago: "If the evidence doesn't fit, you must ACQUIT." I trust the jury will do the right thing.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

      Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
      A line from the OJ trial, years ago: "If the evidence doesn't fit, you must ACQUIT." I trust the jury will do the right thing.


      What exactly is the right thing?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

        Originally posted by rockyoyster View Post
        What exactly is the right thing?

        Make them pay capitol gains tax.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

          Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
          Make them pay capitol gains tax.
          Capital gains...on what?

          If you had a $50 FRN in one hand and a US minted $50 American Gold Eagle Coin in the other...which one is the real $50, they both can't be $50.

          If you went to your local tax office to pay your quarterly taxes in pre 1964 90% silver coins (or sae's or age's), do you think they would do a quick check of the "spot" price and accept less than the face value for your taxes, no they would give you credit only for the face value?

          Your reasoning we should have to pay tax based on the intrinsic value of money? as opposed to the face value of the currency? Because I don't think $100 is "worth" $100, it really has no intrinsic value...I have been way overpaying on my taxes...I guess :-)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

            Originally posted by Kimmons View Post
            Capital gains...on what?

            If you had a $50 FRN in one hand and a US minted $50 American Gold Eagle Coin in the other...which one is the real $50, they both can't be $50.

            If you went to your local tax office to pay your quarterly taxes in pre 1964 90% silver coins (or sae's or age's), do you think they would do a quick check of the "spot" price and accept less than the face value for your taxes, no they would give you credit only for the face value?

            Your reasoning we should have to pay tax based on the intrinsic value of money? as opposed to the face value of the currency? Because I don't think $100 is "worth" $100, it really has no intrinsic value...I have been way overpaying on my taxes...I guess :-)

            If they sold the "$50.00" coin for $900.00 do they owe a tax on the gain? Or do you think all these people who were paid wages like this are still holding the coins and living off other monies?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

              Originally posted by cjppjc View Post
              If they sold the "$50.00" coin for $900.00 do they owe a tax on the gain? Or do you think all these people who were paid wages like this are still holding the coins and living off other monies?
              if they sold them today they'd owe a 28% collectibles tax rate on the diff between the $50 face value 'pay' and the $990 received, or 28% of $940 = $232.

              good deal for the employee? i think not.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                I wonder if the defendant deducted the cost of purchasing the gold and silver coins he used to pay his employees.

                If he did, then he shouldnt claim that he thought it was just fine to pay them and pretend that he was only giving them the face value.

                If he bought 10 ounces of gold for $10,000, and it had a face value of $500, then when he paid his employees, he should only have deducted $500 as employee payroll when he filed his taxes.

                Of course, I am sure he deducted the full amount he spent on the gold and silver as employee payroll expenses, then told the employees they could use the face value of the coins and skip out on income taxes themselves.

                I doubt the employees paid any taxes at all on their income, and probably didnt pay the 28% collectible tax either.

                As much as I hate paying taxes, sounds like this guy belongs in jail, as there would be no way to benefit tax-wise if he treated the cost of purchasing the coins the same as the face value. Not to mention, he claims all his employees are independent contractors to circumvent the minimum wage laws.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                  Originally posted by metalman View Post
                  if they sold them today they'd owe a 28% collectibles tax rate on the diff between the $50 face value 'pay' and the $990 received, or 28% of $940 = $232.

                  good deal for the employee? i think not.

                  Good link MM, I wasn't aware of the 15% tax bracket! I was under the impression the tax rate would be 28% FED plus any state tax (8.5% here in Maine). A total of 36.5% tax on long gains ... ouch! Does NH tax gains?

                  This is an area that continues to puzzle me ... I don't have a good strategy to minimize my tax liability when I inevitably cash out. That and fear the gains rate will increase as Obamamania picks my pockets. Bartering gold/silver directly for goods would be a tax free way of unloading a little. If creative, one could redeem just enough PMs each year to stay within the 15% criteria, but would miss unloading at or near peak.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                    This should be interesting. I encountered this particular twist of circumstance decades ago. Under the USC 31.5112. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc31.wais&start=2282115&SIZE=93048&TYPE=TEXT, money is defined. It is also declared legal tender http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc31.wais&start=2257814&SIZE=2498&TYPE=TEXT. The government or the treasury are prohibited from paying this money out. There is AFAIK no accounting difference possible between FRN's and Gold Eagles (treated as money). Treated as bullion, it becomes a different story. I don't think people are prohibited from tendering Gold Eagles into circulation. Imagine being paid rather than having a debt obligation settling the account. A $100 transaction between a willing buyer and seller could then be an Eagle and a GRANT, for a total of $100, and both are now in circulation. As long as the recipient keeps the Eagle in circulation, any number of 50 dollar transactions can be supported in the downline from either the Eagle or the GRANT. Thus sequestering or deferring will occur as long as the Eagle is not tendered in a bullion trade, by taking the Eagle out of circulation, and no longer treating it as the money that the law defines it as. This duality of the Eagle provides the recipient with an opportunity for deferring gains, or if tendered in exchange (i.e. circulating the Eagle as 50 dollars) pricing any transaction in which it is involved.
                    TPTB prefers transactions to be priced in the legal tender debt equivalents rather than money.
                    Circulating the Eagles would severly crimp the accounting amounts, and this is the Catch-22. There is currently about 20:1 leverage involved on circulating Eagles as money. And this is a reverse leverage on taxation, and a deferred leverage for savings, or a significantly lowered price point for everything when maintained in circulation. How big of a bag of potatoes will 50 dollars buy. Guess it depends.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                      Originally posted by doom&gloom View Post
                      US coins stamped with a face value are maybe the ONLY Constitutional legal tender around. yet now
                      the IRS/Gov't wants to prove that 'legal tender' is NOT legal tender. Go figure...
                      For those interested in the outcome

                      http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...ahre-tax-frau/
                      Jury convicts business owner Robert Kahre of tax fraud


                      By Mary Manning (contact)
                      Friday, Aug. 14, 2009 | 5:54 p.m.
                      A federal jury found Las Vegas businessman Robert Kahre and three others guilty Friday of several felony tax crimes, including conspiracy to defraud the IRS, tax evasion and hiding assests.
                      Robert D. Kahre and his sister, Lori A. Kahre, each were convicted of intentionally and knowingly conspiring to defraud the federal government, U.S. Attorney Greg Brower of Nevada said.
                      Robert Kahre was also convicted of 49 counts of failure to collect or pay employment taxes, two counts of attempting to interfere with administration of IRS laws, four counts of tax evasion and one count of wire fraud.
                      Lori Kahre was also convicted of two counts of attempting to interfere with administration of IRS laws, one count of making a false statement to a bank and seven counts of tax evasion.
                      Robert Kahre faces up to 296 years in prison and fines of up to $14 million, Brower said. Lore Kahre faces up to 71 years in prison and fines of up to $2.75 million.
                      Robert Kahre's business consultant, Alexander C. Loglia, was convicted of one count of filing a false income tax return and 10 counts of tax evasion. He faces up to 53 years in prison and fines of up to $2.75 million.
                      Robert Kahre's girlfriend, Danille Cline, was convicted of one count of attempting to interfere with administering IRS laws and one count of wire fraud. She faces up to 23 years in prison and fines of up to $500,000.
                      Sentencing for all defendants is scheduled for 9 a.m. Nov. 17. The defendants have been released on personal recognizance bonds before the sentencing.
                      Robert Kahre and his associates were indicted in April 2005.
                      The trial lasted three months and the jury took two days to deliberate.
                      The indictments alleged that from 1998 through 2003 Kahre paid his employees and employees of other businesses with whom he contracted in gold, silver or cash from an office at 6270 Kimberly Ave.
                      No federal taxes were withheld from the paychecks and wages were not reported to the IRS, court records said.
                      Kahre also was accused of trying to evade income tax he owed for the years 1992 and 1993 in the amount of $1,000,453 and he attempted to conceal income from 1996 through 2005 by using straw buyers to purchase property in the names of his mother, girlfriend and stepfather.
                      "that each simple substance has relations which express all the others"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                        Thank you for this update. Here is a more indepth article from another LV newspaper:

                        http://www.lvrj.com/news/53287717.html

                        From the article:

                        "As lengthy sheets of guilty verdicts were read, Kahre's longtime girlfriend Danille Cline sobbed, putting her head against him.
                        Three jurors were observed crying, too. Some spectators, sitting on the defense side of the full courtroom, also were in tears."

                        WTF?? Why were the jurors crying? Hasn't anyone heard of "jury nullification"????

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                          Originally posted by bradzepfan View Post
                          WTF?? Why were the jurors crying? Hasn't anyone heard of "jury nullification"????
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

                          Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[33] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[34] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[35] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[36] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.
                          I think at most, you could gain time for a new jury trial since the jurors could be removed if they intend to "nullify"...
                          Every interest bearing loan is mathematically impossible to pay back.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: When is 'legal tender' not legal tender

                            Originally posted by bradzepfan View Post

                            WTF?? Why were the jurors crying? Hasn't anyone heard of "jury nullification"????
                            (presumption) a majority is required? also from wikipedia

                            In recent years, judges seem to be less likely to favor jury nullification. While unable to take away the power of nullification, they have done much to prevent its use. The first landmark decisions since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution confirmed several rights of the defense in a criminal case: a requirement on the bench not make a decision on motions until all legal arguments had been made by both sides; the right to be free of making those arguments before the jury had been seated; and the right to make those legal arguments to the jury.[29][30]
                            The first major decision that departed from this line was Games v. Stiles ex dem Dunn, 39 U.S. 322 (1840),[31] which held that the bench could override the verdict of the jury on a point of law. The 1895 decision in Sparf v. U.S. written by Justice John Marshall Harlan held that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. It was a 5-4 decision. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present legal argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[32]
                            Recent court rulings have contributed to the prevention of jury nullification. A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[33] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[34] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification."[35] In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[36] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification.
                            Last edited by Diarmuid; August 20, 2009, 10:32 AM.
                            "that each simple substance has relations which express all the others"

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X