Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Newspaper Commenters Subpoenaed In Tax Case
skuzzlebutt writes "In a federal tax case reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal last week, a local businessman has been paying his employees in gold coins instead of cash or ACH, and has reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage — not the much higher market value of the metal. The United States disagreed, and brought him up on 57 counts of income tax evasion, tax fraud and criminal conspiracy. The non-authenticated comments section of the original article brought a lot of supporters out of the woodwork, including a few who thought the jury should be hung (literally, procedurally, or figuratively ... pick one). In response, the prosecution has subpoenaed the names of the anonymous commenters, citing fears of jury safety. Or something. The obvious questions of privacy and protected speech aside, for the folks that support the defendant (the newspaper is fighting the subpoena), this also brings back into the spotlight the troll-empowering nature of pseudo-anonymous, non-authenticated boards. If they want to find you, they will; is anonymous commenting still worth it, or is it just too risky for the board owners?"
"No State shall [...] make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts [...]"
--Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution
Federal Reserve Notes are nothing but counterfeit money.
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
Because they can? I mean seriously, how often does someone actually get called out on abuse over the internet. If I go to someones blogspot and tell them I want to kill them. There will be no action taken. It's not worth the effort and it's an empty threat like 99.99999% of threats on the internet. On the internet your average 120lb nerd can be a 300lb UFC fighting bear wrangler.
I don't trust the government to protect my rights, but in this case they may have a point. Threatening people with bodily harm is illegal, and freedom of speech is not a valid defense. If you choose to break the law, then you're giving the cops permission to hunt you down and prosecute you, "anonymous" or not. (Even if the law is a bad one and the cops are thugs controlled by a petty dictator.) (Iran, et al.) Which doesn't mean that I think anonymity is bad; I just think that you should learn a little bit about the law and about search warrants and about technology before you start your life of crime. (True anonymity is necessary to defend freedom, even if it means a thousand Cletuses and Bubbas can use it, too.)
I believe that in the (implied, non-existant) Internet charter of rights anonymity is a basic human right. I believe in opt-in, not opt-out. A webmaster has a sacred trust that he will guard his users' IP addresses and only leverage them for internal use, if at all. Besides, that IP address could have been used by the subscriber, a child, a wardriver, a cheapskate nextdoor neighbour, or an entirely different household if the ISP made a mistake in their logs.
On my blog I allow anonymous comments and I wrote "(optional)" next to the email and WWW fields on the comment submit form. I get TONS more spam because of this, but that's a service I feel is essential to my readers and integral to the fabric of the web.
If the government fears how people react to facts then maybe they should outlaw news media.
Both the IRS and Kahre are in the wrong here.
The Government is required by LAW to recognize American currency at face value. They have no choice in the matter. The government's isregarding face value of "legal tender for all debts, public and private" is illegal. The government issued that currency (or authorised its issuance) for the face value and require it to be accepted as such so they have no legal choice but to accept it for the value they declared it to be.
However, if he wants to play the "face value" defense, which is legitimate (he should win that case) what he should be charged with is violating the federal minimum wage laws, not tax evasion.
What he and his employees engage in is tax avoidance, which is perfectly legal. Tax avoidance is simply following the letter of the law and avoiding the incurring tax liability. Practically every politician engages in avoidance. Things such as claiming one's standard exemption, creating a shell company and having it lease one's vehicle for business purposes, and so forth. If I ever make the kind of money where it makes sense to do so, you bet your ass I would hire a tax lawyer and take advantage of the law to the my benefit. The tax code is needlessly complex for three things: to keep lawyers busy and make them rich, for social engineering (keep citizens in line by making them accept government control), and to benefit politicians who create hard-to-understand loopholes for their own use.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
True, but I don't understand why this is such a big deal. You could never mail anonymous letters threatening people without triggering an investigation, why do people think that when they go online they can threaten people and not suffer consequences?
That was my first thought, as well: The freedom to speak anonymously isn't freedom to make anonymous threats. However, I disagree that anyone was threatening the jury here. There's a huge gap between "they ought to" hurt someone and "I'm going to" hurt someone. If I say that George W. Bush should be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of the country on rails, that's not the same as threatening to assault him.
If you sold it to the collector for $100 it indeed would be an additional $99.99 income.
Sending someone a snail mail death threat implies you know who they are and where they live. Going to the trouble of a physical cut and paste from magazines implies you are willing to expend time and effort on your threat.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
...Because most forum admins know next to nothing about computers other than "type this and it sets up a bulletin board!!!"?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"Reportedly told them that they can only be taxed on the face value of the coinage -- not the much higher market value of the metal"
The money paid is 100% legal United States Currency, minted by the United States Government itself.
The US constitution specifically states that gold an silver are legal tender.
What's the problem? It's not his problem that the US government has destroyed the value of money so that "old" but perfectly legal currency is now worth 1000 times more than it's equivalent "new" money...IF the government doesn't like it they need to change the law and outlaw the gold coins that they mint as legal tender.
Otherwise he's being prosecuted for something that "feels" illegal, which is a deadly slippery slope to go down.
The money is printed by the Federal Reserve and NOT by the Federal Government. Sheesh, don't you know the difference?
It is legal tender for all debts.
The IRS is NOT prosecuting him for paying in Gold. The IRS doesn't care how you pay someone. Gold, Silver, mud, iron, hell in Nevada even Sex.
What it cares about is its value in USD.
In this case this guy paid in Gold, whose real value is more than what its face value states.
RTFA and research before you open your pie hole.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
They may be free to say anything, but they must be willing to accept the consequences of what they say in many cases.
Courts have long held (arising out of common law) that some forms of speech are not protected. We have long (even since the time of the framers) had limits on speach: libel and slander. We also have laws that treat threats not as free speech, but as a form of assault (differentiated from striking someone: "battery"--the treatment of "assault" and "battery" will vary depending on the jurisdiction where you reside).
A free people should always be free to express divergent opinions, but there are limits when what is said or written becomes a direct assault on another.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
American workers are taxed on the dollar value of their earnings - this is typically payment in cash, but if you receive non-monetary compensation as part of your employment, you're still responsible for paying taxes on the dollar value of that compensation.
Which was the subject of not one, but two recent slashdot stories where the IRS would enjoy taxing individuals for their portion of company provided cell phone service used for personal use, non-monetary compensation.
Also there is ample tax case law about unusually low valued "gifts" to avoid gift and inheritance taxes. The dude is either liable for violating minimum wage laws, or not paying gift taxes, or is falsifying his financial documents. How he accounts for buying 1 oz gold coins for $1000 and paying his employees at "$20" is going to be pretty weird on ye ole income statement, unless he declares a profit of $980 and pays the appropriate tax on that profit...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I am surprised at the number of Slashdotters who support tax evasion and violent threats.
There's a difference between anonymous threats to random posters on the internet, and anonymous threats directed at jurors in a criminal trial. Obviously, threats to jurors have the possibility of subverting the criminal justice system... which is a pretty big deal. I think the owners of the board ought to cough up the names.
They don't have to accept gold and silver. That part of the Constitution you refer to is Article I, Section 10 and says that States can't make anything currency except gold and silver (all other money is reserved to the Federal Government, hence the Federal Mints); nothing about what the government has to accept.
What you're thinking of is that the dollar bill used to be backed by gold. Other nations could at any time they wanted trade money for gold (and vice versa) with the US government. The Smithsonian Agreement ended that however. The US Government no longer trades money for anything other than more money.
What this guy did was try to pay his employees one amount and report a different amount. For example, he bought gold coins that had a face value of $100 for $500. He then gave the coins to an employee for a week's pay. His expense for that employee was $500; but he reported on the employee's W2 that the employee was paid $100. That's illegal. -- He argued that the face value of the payment method is all that matters. IRS operates on a Cash basis, what he paid for the employee is what he should report (employment taxes aside). This still leaves some room for a discrepancy based on the value of gold when he purchased it to when the employees were paid, any gain would have to be reported on the employee's tax return however.
This comment is a personal opinion, it does not constitute legal or tax advice.
FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
What they're terrified of is people going back to hard currency.
Terrified? Please. I suppose they're also terrified of all those Econ 101 students learning about what money is, what the value of an exchange is, what value is. Oh, no, I forgot: that's the indoctrination that keeps six billion people in the Matrix. Except for a few laser-eyed gold bugs, that is.
The IRS collects tax on income. Lots of in-kind income is taxable just like cash. It should be, else non-cash income would have a tax advantage, and the whole economy would be encouraged to seek less efficient forms of payment. If you think that's a good idea, talk to my friend who, in Soviet days, got paid in shoes.
Really, it's too bad your comment can't be scored +1 ignorant. Try learning some economics before having an opinion on it. Or at least have the humility not to open your mouth and remove all doubt.