|
|
Post by rg on Jul 12, 2011 23:40:51 GMT -6
carrotsign
filter duty
*
member is offline
[send pm]
Joined: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 14
Karma: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Re: Dinar News 7/4 - 7/(hopefully NOT to the) 31st
« Reply #149 Yesterday at 7:30pm »
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2011 6:19:41 GMT -6
i do believe that the irs would hold the answer to the questions of default, as dinars are cashed in , there 15 %taxes will certainly be a great help to restoring some balance to our economy, if we s.hs. were to recieve our just returns from the trust, and at the same time pay off our taxes, due on these funds to the irs directly, this would add big returns to the irs imo. so as we cash they recieve , i still think kibbuff had the right idea using the irs as the dinar cash in place, it helps to solve some of our deficit problems and an a slight boost to the economy , after all i belive 50,000 s.h.s. can add huge difference to the budget and the economy . we as a group have been waiting for this payment to use these funds to help the gov, and the markets just waiting to use these funds to pay off our personal debts , to me this proposal is a great opportunity for the gov to help balance the u.s. budget ,.its time to stop all the bickering and get something of concseqences done.god bless america and all its s.h.s.waiting to do our part ...., good post carrot sign ,twt...
|
|
|
|
Post by oreocookie on Jul 13, 2011 6:56:00 GMT -6
i do believe that the irs would hold the answer to the questions of default, as dinars are cashed in , there 15 %taxes will certainly be a great help to restoring some balance to our economy, if we s.hs. were to recieve our just returns from the trust, and at the same time pay off our taxes, due on these funds to the irs directly, this would add big returns to the irs imo. so as we cash they recieve , i still think kibbuff had the right idea using the irs as the dinar cash in place, it helps to solve some of our deficit problems and an a slight boost to the economy , after all i belive 50,000 s.h.s. can add huge difference to the budget and the economy . we as a group have been waiting for this payment to use these funds to help the gov, and the markets just waiting to use these funds to pay off our personal debts , to me this proposal is a great opportunity for the gov to help balance the u.s. budget ,.its time to stop all the bickering and get something of concseqences done.god bless america and all its s.h.s.waiting to do our part ...., good post carrot sign ,twt... EXCEPT.....There should be NO tax on our F&P payment and taxes have already been taken out of the 3.7T $ trust. Remember it was 4.2T before taxes! Unless the release finally allows government access to their ~ 22% tax but I'll bet they didn't have to wait for the release. Therefore CMKX shareholders have already chipped in and the Dinar RV along with the other 181 countries RV'ing would be taxable on any monetary gains. Unless you've read something different? The F&P is a settlement, therefore non-taxable. Certainly the economic gains from us spending some money should help substantially! JMO from what I've read. Boyscout (Oreocookie's very lucky half - AMELLF BABY) |
|
|
|
Post by Twist Capper on Jul 13, 2011 11:55:31 GMT -6
Boyscout We can only take what we hear with a grain of salt and and dash of reality...... F & P, although some say are tax-free - to my knowledge, would not be tax-free. Tax-free is usually reserved for settlements in cases of physical injury/ mental suffering. The taxes that were supposedly "taken out" could have been based on interest earned by alleged trust, not based on disbursement of the funds. AFAIC, EVERYTHING is just banter and speculation until someone gives us specific instructions on how to cash-in our certs - and your financial/tax consultant advises you on taxation.  TC |
|
|
|
Post by oreocookie on Jul 13, 2011 12:27:01 GMT -6
Boyscout We can only take what we hear with a grain of salt and and dash of reality...... F & P, although some say are tax-free - to my knowledge, would not be tax-free. Tax-free is usually reserved for settlements in cases of physical injury/ mental sufferring. The taxes that were supposedly "taken out" could have been based on interest earned by alleged trust, not based on disbursement of the funds. AFAIC, EVERYTHING is just banter and speculation until someone gives us instructions on how to cash-in our certs. TC Very true TC! My apologies TWT. Thanks! Boyscout |
|
|
|
Post by Twist Capper on Jul 13, 2011 13:49:23 GMT -6
re: Taxation on F & P monies The following is general guidelines from IRS Publication 525,
Taxable and Nontaxable Income. To determine if settlement amounts you receive by compromise or judgment must be included in your income, you must consider the item that the settlement replaces. The character of the income as ordinary income or capital gain depends on the nature of the underlying claim. Include the following as ordinary income. - Interest on any award. - Compensation for lost wages or lost profits in most cases. - Punitive damages, in most cases. It does not matter if they relate to a physical injury or physical sickness. - Amounts received in settlement of pension rights (if you did not contribute to the plan). - Damages for: - Patent or copyright infringement, - Breach of contract, or - Interference with business operations. - Back pay and damages for emotional distress received to satisfy a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. - Attorney fees and costs (including contingent fees) where the underlying recovery is included in gross income. Do not include in your income compensatory damages for personal physical injury or physical sickness (whether received in a lump sum or installments). Emotional distress itself is not a physical injury or physical sickness, but damages you receive for emotional distress due to a physical injury or sickness are treated as received for the physical injury or sickness. Do not include them in your income. If the emotional distress is due to a personal injury that is not due to a physical injury or sickness (for example, unlawful discrimination or injury to reputation), you must include the damages in your income, except for any damages you receive for medical care due to that emotional distress. Emotional distress includes physical symptoms that result from emotional distress, such as headaches, insomnia, and stomach disorders. You can visit www.irs.gov to view, order, print or download IRS publications and forms or you can call (800) 829-3676 to have them mailed to you.
Yikes ! Ordinary income if this is F & P monies? |
|
|
|
Post by Twist Capper on Jul 13, 2011 13:49:42 GMT -6
for Canadians:
Damages, Settlements and Similar Receipts
NO: IT-365R2
DATE: May 8, 1987
SUBJECT: INCOME TAX ACT
Damages, Settlements and Similar Receipts
REFERENCE: Section 3 (also section 6, subsections 5(1), 12.2(1) and (3), 14(1), 16(1), 56(1), and 248(1), paragraphs 81(1)(g.1) and (g.2) and subparagraphs 14(5)(a)(iv) and 56(1)(a)(ii)).
This bulletin replaces and cancels IT-365R dated March 9, 1981 and the Special Release to IT-365R which was issued on May 25, 1984. Current revisions are designated by vertical lines.
1. This bulletin deals with the treatment for tax purposes of amounts received
(a) out of claims for damages for personal injury or death,
(b) as compensation for the loss of property or income,
(c) as crime compensation awards, and
(d) on termination of employment.
Amounts received as Damages in Respect of Personal Injury or Death
2. Amounts in respect of damages for personal injury or death may be received by an injured taxpayer or by a dependant of a deceased taxpayer on account of:
(a) Special damages - examples are compensation for
(i) out-of-pocket expenses such as medical and hospital expenses, and
(ii) accrued or future loss of earnings and
(b) General damages - examples are compensation for
(i) pain and suffering,
(ii) the loss of amenities of life,
(iii) the loss of earning capacity,
(iv) the shortened expectation of life and
(v) the loss of financial support caused by the death of the supporting individual.
All amounts received by a taxpayer or the taxpayer's dependant, as the case may be, that qualify as special or general damages for personal injury or death will be excluded from income regardless of the fact that the amount of such damages may have been determined with reference to the loss of earnings of the taxpayer in respect of whom the damages were awarded. However, an amount which can reasonably be considered to be income from employment rather than an award of damages will not be excluded from income. The tax treatment of an award of compensation, as adjudicated by a compensation board or commission in Canada, which is received as a result of a worker having suffered injury, disability or death while performing the duties of employment, is explained in IT-202R2.
Awards Not Considered to be Annuities
3. An award of damages for personal injury or death that decrees that it be paid in periodic payments is not, despite such periodic payments, considered to be an annuity contract for the purposes of subsections 12.2(3) and 56(1) and the periodic payments themselves are not considered to be annuity payments. However, an annuity contract purchased by a taxpayer or a taxpayer's representative with proceeds of a lump sum award received for damages for personal injury or death will be an annuity contract for all purposes of the Act and will, except in the circumstances described in 6 below, give rise to income in the taxpayer's hands.
Interest Element of Awards for Personal Injury or Death
4. Where an amount in respect of damages for personal injury or death has been awarded by a Court or resolved in an out-of-court settlement, no part of such amount will be income to the recipient even though the amount includes or is augmented by an amount which, pursuant to the terms of the Court order or the settlement agreement, is referred to as interest. However, where an amount that has been awarded for damages is held on deposit, the amount of interest earned will be included in the income of the injured taxpayer unless paragraph 81(1)(g.1) or (g.2) has application (see 6 below). Where an amount that has been awarded for damages is held in trust, any interest earned on the amount is income of the trust or of the beneficiary, depending on the circumstances.
Structured Settlement
5. A "structured settlement" is a means of paying or settling a claim for damages, usually against a casualty insurer, in such a way that amounts paid to the claimant as a result of the settlement are free from tax in the claimant's hands. To create such a structured settlement the following conditions must be complied with:
(a) a claim for damages must have been made in respect of personal injury or death,
(b) the claimant and the casualty insurer must have reached an agreement under which the latter is committed to make at least periodic payments to the claimant for either a fixed term or the life of the claimant,
(c) the casualty insurer must
(i) purchase a single premium annuity contract which must be non-assignable, non-commutable, non-transferable and designed to produce payments equal to the amounts, and at the times, specified in the agreement referred to in (b),
(ii) make an irrevocable direction to the issuer of the annuity contract to make all payments thereunder directly to the claimant, and
(iii) remain liable to make the payments as required by the settlement agreement (i.e., the annuity contract payout).
As a consequence of compliance with the foregoing conditions, the casualty insurer is the owner of, and annuitant (beneficiary) under, the annuity contract and must report as income the interest element inherent in the annuity contract while the payments received by the claimant represent, in the Department's view, non-taxable payments for damages.
Income from Property that was Received by a Taxpayer Under 21 Years of Age as an Award of Damages for Personal Injury
6. For the 1984 and subsequent taxation years, paragraphs 81(1)(g.1) and (g.2) exempt from tax the income of a taxpayer from particular sources for taxation years during any part of which the taxpayer was under 21 years of age. To qualify for this exemption the income must, during the particular taxation years, be derived from one or more of the following sources:
(a) property received by or on behalf of a taxpayer who is under 21 years of age as an award of, or pursuant to an action for, damages in respect of the taxpayer's physical or mental injury,
(b) property substituted for property described in (a),
(c) a capital gain derived from the disposition of property described in (a) or (b), or
(d) invested income that was, by virtue of paragraph 81(1)(g.1) or (g.2), not required to be included in the taxpayer's income for a particular taxation year described above.
For the purposes of paragraphs 81(1)(g.1) and (g.2) income will include income received and receivable and income accrued (i.e., earned but not received) up to, but not beyond, the end of the taxation year in which the taxpayer attains the age of 21 years.
7. For taxation years ending after 1971 and before 1984, former paragraph 81(1)(g.1)
(a) caused the exempt period to end on the day immediately preceding the day on which the injured taxpayer attained the age of 21 years, and
(b) restricted exempt income to income that was actually received while the injured taxpayer was under 21 years of age.
Receipts in Respect of Non-Performance of Business Contracts
8. An amount received by a taxpayer in lieu of the performance of the terms of a business contract by the other party to that contract may, depending on the facts, be either an income or capital receipt. If the receipt relates to the loss of an income-producing asset, it will be considered to be a capital receipt; on the other hand, if it is compensation for the loss of income, it will constitute business income. Again, while it is a question of fact as to whether a receipt is an income or capital amount, the following factors are important in making this distinction:
(a) if the compensation is received for the failure to receive a sum of money that would have been an income item if it had been received, the compensation will likely be an income receipt,
(b) "where for example, the structure of the recipient's business is so fashioned as to absorb the shock as one of the normal incidents to be looked for and where it appears that the compensation received is no more than a surrogatum for the future profits surrendered, the compensation received is in use to be treated as a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt", and
(c) "when the rights and advantages surrendered on cancellation are such as to destroy or materially to cripple the whole structure of the recipient's profit-making apparatus, involving the serious dislocation of the normal commercial organization and resulting perhaps in the cutting down of the staff previously required, the recipient of the compensation may properly affirm that the compensation represents the price paid for the loss or sterilization of a capital asset and is therefore a capital and not a revenue receipt."
((b) and (c) above are quotations from the judgement in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Fleming and Co. (Machinery) Ltd., 33TC57 (House of Lords)).
9. Where an amount received by a taxpayer as compensation for a breach of a business contract is a capital amount according to the comments in 8 above, that amount would relate either to a particular asset of the taxpayer or to the whole structure of the taxpayer's profit-making apparatus. If, on the basis of the facts of the case, such as the terms of a contract, settlement or judgement, the amount received relates to a particular asset (tangible or intangible) which is sold, destroyed or abandoned as a consequence of the breach of contract, it will be considered proceeds of disposition of that asset or a part thereof, as the case may be. Where the amount of compensation relates to a particular asset that was not disposed of, the amount will serve to reduce the cost of that asset to the taxpayer. On the other hand, where the amount of compensation is of a capital nature but it does not relate to a particular asset as indicated above, the amount will be considered as compensation for the destruction of, or as damages to, the whole profit-making apparatus of the taxpayer's business. Such compensation may result in an "eligible capital amount" for the purpose of subsection 14(1) and subparagraph 14(5)(a)(iv).
Compensation for Loss of Business Income or Business Properties
10. Amounts received by a taxpayer with respect to the loss of business income or business property may fall into one of the following categories:
(a) a non-taxable receipt,
(b) an income receipt,
(c) a receipt resulting from the disposition of a capital property, or
(d) an eligible capital amount.
See IT-182 for a discussion of the factors that determine the tax status of a given receipt.
Crime Compensation Awards and Similar Receipts
11. A number of provinces make crime-compensation awards pursuant to the authority of criminal-injury compensation laws. The Department considers that such crime-compensation awards are non-taxable.
12. A taxpayer who is a victim of a crime may receive compensation from a source other than the person who committed the crime or a crime-compensation board. For example, a male employee of a bank is kidnapped and upon his release the bank pays the employee an amount to compensate for "damages" inflicted on him. Where the amount of money or benefit received is compensation for damages the Department will normally consider the amount to be a non-taxable receipt even if the damages are computed with reference to the victim's salary. To qualify as a non-taxable receipt, the amount must not be in excess of a fair evaluation of the damages suffered by the employee having regard to all relevant facts of the case. The amount of the receipt will ordinarily be accepted as a fair evaluation unless there are indications (such as the employer and employee not dealing at arm's length) that the receipt includes an amount for services rendered by the employee to the employer. Any part of an amount received by a taxpayer from his employer, or former employer, that is compensation for loss of earnings (e.g., an amount paid in lieu of regular wages or benefits) resulting from a disability of short duration will be included in the income of the taxpayer.
13. Where a taxpayer, other than an employee, is in receipt of an amount that has not been awarded by a court or a crime-compensation board (a payment by a bank to a customer, for example) for "damages" inflicted as a result of a crime, the total amount is considered to be a non-taxable receipt.
Amounts Received on Termination of Employment
14. Applicable with respect to the termination of an office or employment occurring after November 12, 1981, the defined term "termination payment" was repealed by S.C. 1980-81-82-83, c.140. The definition of "retiring allowance" in subsection 248(1) was amended concurrently so that amounts that were previously included in the definition of a termination payment are now fully included in income as retiring allowances under subparagraph 56(1)(a)(ii). Retiring allowances are dealt with in IT-337R2
15. Where a taxpayer receives an amount pursuant to the terms of an employment contract, the amount is to be included in computing the taxpayer's income under subsection 5(1) or section 6, whichever may be applicable, as income from an office or employment, whether or not it is received on termination of the employment. Such an amount would include, for example, salary, wages, accrued vacation pay, and an amount paid in lieu of notice of termination.
Either place......consult with your tax specialist "before" you make
plans for your impending wealth............
|
|
|
|
Post by dvermill on Jul 13, 2011 22:54:14 GMT -6
Seems to be a pattern here hmmmmmmm......... By: elvis-is-here 13 Jul 2011, 01:55 PM EDT Rating: Msg. 1027599 of 1027698 Jump to msg. # Hidden Agenda: Was Dominique Strauss-Kahn Trying to Torpedo the Dollar? An excerpt from article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24867 Can I tell you what this is all about? It's about the dollar. That's right. Strauss-Kahn was mounting an attack against the dollar and now the wrath of the Empire has descended on him like ton-of-bricks. Here's the scoop from the UK Telegraph: "Dominique Strauss-Kahn, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has called for a new world currency that would challenge the dominance of the dollar and protect against future financial instability..... He suggested adding emerging market countries' currencies, such as the yuan, to a basket of currencies that the IMF administers could add stability to the global system....Strauss-Kahn saw a greater role for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights, (SDRs) which is currently composed of the dollar, sterling, euro and yen, over time but said it will take a great deal of international cooperation to make that work." ("International Monetary Fund director Dominique Strauss-Kahn calls for new world currency", UK Telegraph) So, Strauss-Kahn finds himself in the same crowd as Saddam Hussein and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, right? You may recall that Saddam switched from dollars to euros about a year before the war. 12 months later Iraq was invaded, Saddam was hanged, and the dollar was restored to power. Gaddafi made a similar mistake when "he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar." ("Libya: All About Oil, or All About Central Banking?" Ellen Brown, Op-Ed News) Libya has since come under attack by US and NATO forces which have armed a motley group of dissidents, malcontents and terrorists to depose Gaddafi and reimpose dollar hegemony. And now it's Strauss-Kahn's turn to get torn to shreds. And for good reason. After all, DSK actually poses a much greater threat to the dollar than either Saddam or Gaddafi because he's in the perfect position to shape policy and to persuade foreign heads of state that replacing the dollar is in their best interests. And that is precisely what he was doing; badmouthing the buck. Only he was too dense to figure out that the dollar is the US Mafia's mealticket, the main way that shifty banksters and corporate scalawags extort tribute from the poorest people on earth. Strauss-Kahn was rocking the boat, and now he's going to pay. Here's a clip from CNN Money: "The International Monetary Fund issued a report Thursday on a possible replacement for the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The IMF said Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, could help stabilize the global financial system....SDRs represent potential claims on the currencies of IMF members.....The IMF typically lends countries funds denominated in SDRs. While they are not a tangible currency, some economists argue that SDRs could be used as a less volatile alternative to the U.S. dollar. "Over time, there may also be a role for the SDR to contribute to a more stable international monetary system," he said. The goal is to have a reserve asset for central banks that better reflects the global economy since the dollar is vulnerable to swings in the domestic economy and changes in U.S. policy. In addition to serving as a reserve currency, the IMF also proposed creating SDR-denominated bonds, which could reduce central banks' dependence on U.S. Treasuries. The Fund also suggested that certain assets, such as oil and gold, which are traded in U.S. dollars, could be priced using SDRs." ("IMF discusses dollar alternative", CNN Money) Wow. So DSK was zeroing in on US Treasuries as well as the dollar? That's the whole shooting match. And this excerpt from another article: www.johnperkins.org/?p=1051 Libya: It’s Not About Oil, It’s About Currency and Loans According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars. The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq. Now lets look at the two articles together. They are saying the US is not ready to let the US$ (the Federal Reserve Note, actually not Federal with the FED being a private corporation!) and the system will continue for now, status quo... mistsofavalon.heavenforum.org/t261 |
|
