Bitcoin Forum
May 07, 2024, 04:19:49 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin is Money, says Federal Court  (Read 4734 times)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 04:17:05 AM
 #21

So bitcoin is money but gold is not money?  Cheesy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OghDOApA-1k Federal Reserve chairman bernank

Find a court precedent saying that and you might have something.  Ben Bernkake's comments are just that comments, they aren't the "law of the land" anywhere on the planet.

Wrong, more than "just comments" ... it was congressional testimony by chairman of the federal reserve, in response to a tabled question from the chairman of the senate banking committee.

So next to supreme court, senate testimony is akin to the next highest court in the land ... unfortunately senators have crapped all over that status for so long now it has as much standing now as judge judy and jerry springer re-runs ... dyodd.

It still was merely a statement by the Fed chairmain.  It holds no legal weight, it isn't legal precedent, it is no defense against future prosecution.

Run a ponzi scheme involving gold and hopefully your legal defense will be more than "but Ben Bernanke said".
1715098789
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715098789

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715098789
Reply with quote  #2

1715098789
Report to moderator
1715098789
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1715098789

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1715098789
Reply with quote  #2

1715098789
Report to moderator
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348


Eadem mutata resurgo


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 04:26:59 AM
 #22

Quote
It holds no legal weight

I disagree, and I already explained why.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 04:30:17 AM
 #23

Quote
It holds no legal weight

I disagree, and I already explained why.

Someone saying something in court (or Congress) doesn't make it legal precedent.   Routinely criminals claim they are innocent in court right before they are convicted.  Yes testimony in Congress is essential a court and subject to purgury however the Fed Chairman wasn't giving a VERDICT he was providing testimony.  Google's CEO testified that allowing companies like Google to reptriate foreign profits without penalty would stimulate the US economy.  I guess since Google's CEO said it in Congress (court) it is now suddenly the law of the land.  Companies all over the US are bringing back foreign profits ... er wait they aren't because he was merely testifying not providing any legal precedent or verdict.   Today companies that repatriate foreign profits are STILL subject the same punitive taxation that existed before Google's CEO testified.  Testimony has no legal precedent.  It never has and it never will.  Congress COULD (but didn't) act upon the chairman's testimony to codify it in the form of statute explicitly defining gold as "non-money".  Had they done so it would be the law of the land and gold wouldn't be money however they didn't and as such the testimony was just that, testimony.

If you still don't get it, well I have to conclude you are trolling.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348


Eadem mutata resurgo


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 11:30:18 AM
 #24

Quote
It holds no legal weight

I disagree, and I already explained why.

Testimony has no legal precedent.  It never has and it never will.  Congress COULD (but didn't) act upon the chairman's testimony to codify it in the form of statute explicitly defining gold as "non-money".  Had they done so it would be the law of the land and gold wouldn't be money however they didn't and as such the testimony was just that, testimony.

If you still don't get it, well I have to conclude you are trolling.

No, not trolling, it is you that is at sea (or at best playing fast and loose) with the terminology evidently ... offensive that you have to raise that trolling accusation btw.

You said "it holds no legal weight" which is incorrect, it does, it is witness testimony in Congressional record from a very weighty expert witnesses, the best money can buy some might say.

Then, you have switched/conflated to new and different arguments of "legal precedence" and "codifying into law" ... I never said anything about that either way.

Do you "get" that? wa

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 02:25:54 PM
 #25

I got that you are trolling.  To bad it took a couple of posts.  Won't make that mistake next time.
Have fun with your "bu Bernanke said" defense.  It would last as long as Shaver's "but Bitcoin" defense did.
ErebusBat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 500

I am the one who knocks


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 07:24:12 PM
 #26

Standby for an update on that.  The IRS evidently only just learned about bitcoin in May of 2013.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654620.pdf

And how interesting it is:

Quote
Developed in 2009 by an anonymous programmer or
programmers, bitcoin is a privately-issued digital currency that exists only
as a long string of numbers and letters in a user’s computer file

---
IRS is responsible for ensuring taxpayer compliance for all economic
areas, including virtual economies and currencies. One mechanism that
assists IRS in enforcing tax laws is information reporting, through which
third parties report to IRS and taxpayers on certain taxpayer transactions.
---
U.S. tax laws and regulations generally require
taxpayers to report and pay taxes on all income, regardless of the source
from which the income was derived

---
Ann plays an online game and amasses virtual tools that are valuable
to her avatar. The online game does not allow users to directly
exchange their virtual tools for U.S. dollars, but rather they can do so
using a third-party, making this a hybrid system. Ann uses a thirdparty exchange not affiliated with the online game to coordinate the
transfer of her virtual tools to another player in exchange for U.S.
dollars. The transfer is conducted by the third-party exchange and
payment is mediated by a third-party payment network. Ann may have
earned taxable income from the sale of these virtual tools.

---
Bill is a bitcoin miner. He successfully mines 25 bitcoins. Bill may
have earned taxable income from his mining activities.

---
Carol makes t-shirts and sells them over the Internet. She sells a tshirt to Bill, who pays her with bitcoins. Carol may have earned
taxable income from the sale of the t-shirt.

---
These risks are not unique to virtual economies and currencies, as they also exist for
other types of transactions, such as cash transactions, where there are
not always clear records or third-party tracking and reporting of
transactions
---
If taxpayers using virtual currencies turn to the Internet for tax help, they
may find misinformation in the absence of clear guidance from IRS.
For example, when we performed a simple Internet search for
information on taxation of bitcoin transactions, we found a number of
websites, wikis, and blogs that provided differing opinions on the tax
treatment of bitcoins, including some that could lead taxpayers to
believe that transacting in virtual currencies relieves them of their
responsibilities to report and pay taxes.
---
According to IRS compliance officials, IRS ultimately decided not to
pursue these actions in light of available IRS resources and other higher
priority needs
. Also, IRS did not find strong evidence of the potential for
tax noncompliance related to virtual economies, such as the number of
U.S. taxpayers involved in such activity or the amount of federal tax
revenue at risk.
---
IRS has not assessed the tax compliance risks of open-flow virtual
currencies developed and used outside of virtual economies. These types
of currencies, generally, were introduced after IRS’s last review of
compliance related to virtual economy transactions. According to IRS
compliance officials, IRS would learn about tax compliance issues related
to virtual currencies as it would any other tax compliance issue, such as
IRS examiners identifying compliance problems during examinations or
taxpayers requesting guidance on how to comply with certain tax
requirements. To date, these processes have not resulted in IRS
identifying virtual currencies used outside of virtual economies as a
compliance risk that warrants specific attention.


And finally the conclusion:
Quote
Virtual economies and the use of virtual currencies intended as
alternatives to government-issued currencies are a recent phenomenon,
and the extent to which their use results in tax noncompliance is
unknown. Given this uncertainty, available funding, and other priorities,
IRS made a reasoned decision not to implement a compliance approach
specific to virtual economies and currencies. However, IRS did see value
15Although IRS has not issued guidance, another Department of the Treasury agency, the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, recently issued interpretive guidance clarifying
the treatment of persons creating, obtaining, distributing, exchanging, accepting, or
transmitting virtual currencies. However, such guidance does not discuss the tax
treatment of virtual currency transactions. FIN-2013-G001
in providing taxpayers with information on the tax consequences of virtual
economy transactions, a low-cost step to potentially mitigate some of the
noncompliance risk associated with such transactions. The uncertainty
about the extent virtual currencies are used in taxable transactions and
any associated tax noncompliance means that costly compliance
activities are not merited at this time. However, the fact that
misinformation is circulating and the possibility of growth in the use of
virtual currencies outside virtual economies suggest that it would be
prudent to take low-cost steps, if available, to mitigate potential
compliance risks. The type of information IRS provided about virtual
economy transactions is one model.

░▒▓█ Coinroll.it - 1% House Edge Dice Game █▓▒░ • Coinroll Thread • *FREE* 100 BTC Raffle

Signup for CEX.io BitFury exchange and get GHS Instantly!  Don't wait for shipping, mine NOW!
User705
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1006


First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold


View Profile
August 08, 2013, 07:26:43 PM
 #27

It can be used to purchase goods or services, and as Shavers stated, used to pay for individual living expenses. The only limitation of Bitcoin is that it is limited to those places that accept it as currency. However, it can also be exchanged for conventional currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, Euro, Yen, and Yuan. Therefore, Bitcoin is a currency or form of money, and investors wishing to invest in BTCST provided an investment of money.

I pull up to my grocery store with a couple garbage bags of aluminum cans and get a receipt. I then go into the store and purchase goods and services.  I can also cash it out to dollars.   I could even trade that receipt with someone else for cash and they can then go into the store to purchase goods and services, or get cash out.

So if I ran an investment "fund" where you send me 100 aluminum cans and I promise to deliver 107 cans back to you in a week, all of a sudden aluminum cans become securities [Edit: money] too?    I'm hoping so, as that will make me feel less guilty each time I pick up a 6-pack of beer on the way home -- it's an investment! [Edit: simply my way of changing my asset allocations to diversify the forms of money I may hold].

But I'm presuming the form of value is irrelevant (whether it be gold, bitcoins or beanie babies) and instead the matter entirely has to do with the offering where there is the expectation for profit.
i think that's considered a forward swap and is regulated as a commodities contracts.  Something to keep in mind is just because one court ruled one way doesn't make it instantly set in stone law for all to follow.  Also the ruling was pretty narrow as it only dealt with what constitutes a security and the government casts a wide net on that.  Remember that a lot of gambling companies taking bets on various events got pushed out of usa because it was deemed the bets were securities contracts.  What's curious to me is now that the court ruled this way how will they legally define address and BTC ownership which seems to be a much harder thing then just saying BTC has value thus it can be used as money.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!