Source: http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/archive/index.php/t-708.html?s=25ea6b1f651c27341489f19b46d05f63
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 11:44:07+00:00

Document:
NYGMan-Tax, it is indeed a pleasure to have you here.
You bring a new perspective to this discussion forum.
Earlier today I dug out my searchable copy of the 1986 IRC and searched for the term "value".
"Value" occurs there 3,416,179 times, usually in connection with "interest" or "estate".
Then I searched for "value tax", which occurs not at all, and neither does "taxable value", "value tax" or "inherent value".
A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
Plenty of courts have specifically held that FRNs are "lawful money".
Defendant argues that the Federal Reserve Notes in which he was paid were not lawful money within the meaning of Art. 1, ? 8, United States Constitution. We have held to the contrary. United States v. Ware, 10 Cir., 608 F.2d 400, 402-403. We find no validity in the distinction which defendant draws between "lawful money" and "legal tender." Money is a medium of exchange. Legal tender is money which the law requires a creditor to receive in payment of an obligation.
United States v. Rickman, 638 F.2d 182 (10th Cir. 1980) (emphasis supplied). There are many, many others. For a few, see Poe v. C.I.R., T.C. Memo. 1983-312; United States v. Farber, 679 F.2d 733 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); Love v. Baldwin United Mortgage Co., 168 Ga.App. 361 (1983); Herald v. State, 107 Idaho 640 (1984); Brand v. State, 828 S.W.2d 824 (Tx App. 1992). In fairness, there is a case in which the Third Circuit in dicta says differently. United States v. Thomas, 319 F.3d 640 (3rd Cir. 2003). For clarification, just so you know Dicta is just discussion and is not a legally binding portion of an opinion, and should never be used as authority Feel free to look up these cases, even the 2003 one.
So we can both quote opinions, but at the end of the day, I want facts, code sections, regulations, case law.
The 1986 IRC does not appear to contain the terms "personal deduction" or "$1000 deduction".
"Deduction" and "deductions" occurs quite a few times, but not in the context mentioned in the Freedomleague article.
I don't have any earlier searchable versions of the IRC.
Quatloos needs all the help it can get with Wserra linking PACER finds. He is killing the place because that violates a boundary and feels like crap to sane readers. We all like the notion that we are safe from reality at our cyberspace interface keyboards. Now there is a bigger problem to his cause too. He is revealing that maybe a thousand folks like JohnnyCash who keep an evidence repository and get full refunds of their withholdings! He has brought reality to the readers' screens. So I suppose I can allow you to leave a link here so that readers here can get that same bad taste in their mouths. I have been enjoying how Wserra has terminated more than 10 guests there at any one time lately long enough.
You underlined a perception of the court about WARE's perception above NYGman. I fail to see how that relates to the fact that WARE says that US notes shall be lawful money, while RICKMAN says that Federal Reserve notes may be redeemed in lawful money. So the math is simple when you quit trying to redeem metal. US notes are non-elastic and cannot be used for a reserve currency. They are lawful money and FRNs are elasic and obviously reserve currency. They can be redeemed in lawful money (US notes). But the physical transaction is marred by the Treasury keeping US notes in circulation but out of people's hands in 1971. So we make our demand and have to be satisfied with US notes in the form of Federal Reserve notes. For now.
This reemerging about the federal judges protecting the right to keep pay raises to ward of the deterioration of Fed stock certificates (inflation) is interesting. The timing too!
Let me make this clear, I joined Quatloos very recently, and for the sole purpose of discussing this position with David, in a forum I felt would allow him to explain the technical detail behind his positions. I posted the link because you posted yours. If your position is supported by the law and correct, you have nothing to fear.
As for RICKMAN, your interpretation of this case is not correct, you mistake discussion for holdings, however this is irrelevant to my core question, as I choose not to debate the first part of your theory, my issue is with the position that redeeming renders income non taxable.
I don't know how many times I have to explain, a refund on a return prepared under this theory is not proof this theory has been accepted by the IRS That is not how the IRS works. Let's get off this redeeming point, and back to the taxability of the value of the lawful money you received.
If you carried the same infantile posture as the Quatloser I would completely banish you rather than 2/3 banishment (the other 2 registrations).
You can choose all the extraverted interpretations of such a simple law to understand, that's okay. You have a career to protect and I understand.
I am processing some video (http://youtu.be/Le1vtWbvWLE) from yesterday at the Mason Museum.
I can assure you that your interpretation of Rickman is misapplied to people redeeming lawful money. We understand the reality of FDR's gold seizure in 1933. We make our demand without like Gary RICKMAN expecting metal.

References: v. 
 Art. 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.