Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Gold - Silver - Coins - Numismatics (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
- - Accepting payment in bullion (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=189573)

Golden Girl | 10-17-2007 02:15 PM
Accepting payment in bullion I own a retail store, do you think it is legal for me to put a sign in my window. "Now accepting gold/silver bullion" with the spot plus premium daily? I have a shop in a very high traffic area in a major city, so it would get noticed.

Streets Of Gold | 10-17-2007 02:18 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Of course you can do that. There is no law that prohibits a fair exchange for goods and services. As long as both parties agree.

eyeofliberty | 10-17-2007 02:19 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion There is no law that says you can't accept bullion as payment. Heck, you could accept buttons, baubles, or fish sticks if you wanted to. You could also become a Liberty Merchant of the Liberty Dollar, and accept that as payment: http://www.libertydollar.org As for how accepting bullion would work in terms of taxes, that I don't know.

sliver | 10-17-2007 07:31 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrooper (Post 784342) I've often wondered if you could refuse to accept FRN's. If you were up front with a customer that you do not accept FRN's and only accept payment in gold and silver would that fly or would the Feds jump on you. I notice the FRN says payment for all debts public and private, what if you don't want them and insist on prepayment in Gold or Silver.
I don't think there is any debt involved when someone walks into your shop and wants something you have. ...the Feds probably would jump on you though

FlyingMoose | 10-17-2007 08:30 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion If you ONLY accepted bullion, you probably wouldn't get many customers, and you'd probly get an earful from a lot of them about how you're crazy. There is a law, I believe, that it's illegal to have a contract payable in either gold or FRN's (one or the other is OK, and probably a fixed amount of both, but not the buyer's choice). However, I don't know how this applies to retail.

qatarman1969 | 10-17-2007 08:36 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrooper (Post 784342) I've often wondered if you could refuse to accept FRN's. If you were up front with a customer that you do not accept FRN's and only accept payment in gold and silver would that fly or would the Feds jump on you. I notice the FRN says payment for all debts public and private, what if you don't want them and insist on prepayment in Gold or Silver.
Should be no problem accepting gold / silver as payment, as long as it's a mutually agreed exchange of goods & services. However, I think there would be trouble if one flat out refused to accept FRNs...the goobermint says it's legal tender for all debts public & private. I think that means you gotta take it or the feds will get very unhappy... So just take the FRNs, and run down to your local bullion store & exchange them ASAP for some real money. Everyone wins... :bear_w00t:

Tn...Andy | 10-17-2007 09:00 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Personally, you be nuts to accept "bullion"......take silver coin of pre-65 vintage and have a price list for that and FRNs. Pre-65 silver coin is still legal tender, and you would only have to calculate taxes on the ACTUAL face value.....sales tax, that would help the customer, business and income tax, that would help you ! I'd like to see 'em in court trying to explain to a jury that a 1964 quarter is worth 2.50 FRNs, but a 1965 quarter is only worth "a quarter"...even though we minted BOTH OF THE DADGUM THINGS......ahahahahaaaaaaa.....oh yeah, and a Proof State quarter is worth 1.50 FRNs....ahahahaaaaaaaaa......anybody got a score card ??? What a fricking joke our money system is..... This is EXACTLY what happened in the case the IRS just lost where the guy beat 161 counts of "income tax evasion".....the Feds say "you must calculate silver and gold coin on the "intrinsic" value, not face. Fine, I understand..........what is the "intrinsic" value of an FRN ? All these years I've been paying taxes based on the face value and I should have been paying on the intrinsic value ???......which is the 2 cents the Mint sells them to the Fed for , I guess.....if that.....MAN, do they owe me one heck of a refund !! They can't have it both ways !

Jack London | 10-17-2007 09:17 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Wallace, ID has silver trade units that most merchants take. Google them.

Gcubed | 10-18-2007 12:00 AM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Perfectly legal however, there will be tax implications to deal with. Talk to your CPA.

Atahualpa | 10-18-2007 12:17 AM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion As Tn Andy suggested, I would stick with U.S. government issued coinage...bullion could get tricky from so many angles. I would include Silver Eagles and Gold Eagles and Buffalo's with the pre 65'.

Blorp | 10-18-2007 01:32 AM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion I've heard that this is common in areas of Alaska, especially with gold nuggets. I've heard that some stores have scales and will accept gold in lieu of FRNs. Maybe someone from there can comment? I'd like verification and information myself. Blorp

Tn...Andy | 10-18-2007 08:08 AM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Yes....you can refuse to accept FRNs IN ADVANCE.....however, if you extend credit, ( create a debt with the buyer ) you have to accept them as payment.....that's the definition of legal tender.....I "tender you an offer of payment for this DEBT"......if you don't accept, I am under no legal obligation to offer you any other form of payment. You can post a sign on the door that says "We do not take Federal Reserve Notes or personal checks" :D ......Just like gas stations post "No bills larger than 20 after dark" or whatever......probably cut down the number of customers you draw, but that's your business.

Codger | 10-19-2007 03:19 PM
Re: Accepting payment in bullion Here's some interesting stuff regarding a recent ruling about paying employees in bullion. our-month trial ends with no convictions Federal income tax evasion case involved nine defendants By JOAN WHITELY REVIEW-JOURNAL <!-- startclickprintexclude --><!--------------Related Videos---------------><!--------------Related Stories---------------><!-- endclickprintexclude --> A criminal tax case alleging income tax evasion and conspiracy dissolved in federal court this week, when a jury returned zero convictions on 161 charges faced by nine defendants. Monday's verdict "sends a strong message," said defense attorney Lisa Rasmussen, who represented Joel Axberg, a tile layer. Informally called the Kahre case -- after the primary defendant, local business owner Robert Kahre, who paid workers in gold and silver coins -- the trial lasted four months. It relied heavily on evidence gathered in a controversial armed raid in May 2003 on several of Kahre's local business places. The raid entailed keeping more than 20 workers handcuffed, at gunpoint, in 106-degree heat without shade or water while agents collected records and equipment. "Yeah, that's a pretty major victory," said defense lawyer William Cohan. "If you go 0 for 160 (in baseball), they'd send you down to the minor leagues." <!-- startclickprintexclude --><!-- endclickprintexclude --> Cohan was upbeat although his client, Kahre, was not acquitted of any of his 109 charges. Rather, the jury hung on all of Kahre's counts. The jury also hung on all counts faced by Kahre's sister, Lori Kahre, and defendant Alex Loglia. Four defendants acquitted of all the charges against them were Axberg, Robert Furman, Ron Ruggles, and Kahre's mother, Myra Buonomo. "It was the most wonderful feeling and the most wonderful day in ages," Buonomo, 66, said of her acquittal. She said she works "more or less as a runner" for her son's construction-related businesses. Part of the case hinged on whether Kahre's workers were employees or independent contractors, who are responsible for paying their own taxes. Two other defendants, Dannielle Alires and Debra Rosenbaum, were partly acquitted, with the jury hung on one count each. Before trial, five additional defendants had pleaded guilty. Michael Kennedy, who defended Lori Kahre, said the case turned on the notion that taxpayers could be wrong without being criminal. He was referring to the fact that his client, Lori Kahre, and other defendants had not paid taxes according to the market value of the precious metal content of the coins in which they were paid, as opposed to their face value. He conceded at trial that his client may owe federal taxes for her mistakes. The Internal Revenue Service had never before provided guidance on how to handle gold and silver coins that circulate, only on noncirculating collectible coins, according to Kennedy, who is a federal public defender. "If that's the case, we're not going to take someone's liberty from them, on something that a (certified public accountant) with a master's degree doesn't even know. That's a scary country, and I don't live in that country." J. Gregory Damm, the assistant U.S. attorney who led the prosecution, declined to say whether the government will retry any of the five defendants on the charges that resulted in a hung jury. Damm referred the newspaper to Natalie Collins, public affairs specialist for the U.S. attorney's office in Las Vegas. Acting U.S. Attorney Steven W. Myhre issued a statement through Collins that thanked jurors, investigators and prosecutors. "Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the jury to decide whether the government met its burden of proof in the case and we accept their decision." He said the office will "soon decide" whether to retry any defendants. Jurors got stuck on the question of whether the government had proved defendants intentionally violated tax law, according to David Ramirez, jury foreman. "Oh my God, the willfulness is very hard to prove, as we found out," Ramirez, 49, said Wednesday. "That was the hard part, especially in the conspiracy charge." Ramirez works in management for the U.S. Postal Service. The government "did not present one witness who agreed with the conspiracy theory," said attorney Joel Hansen, who defended Loglia. Currently unemployed, Loglia did paralegal work for Kahre. The jurors favoring acquittal varied by defendant, Ramirez said. "Personally, I went guilty (on some counts) and some, not guilty." He said when the 12 jurors split on a count, it was usually a 6-6 or 7-5 split. Ramirez said the prosecuting team had a clear, although silent, reaction to the verdict: "The head was hanging down, the shoulders were low." He said "shocked" was the term some prosecutors used to describe themselves when they talked to him after the trial. Cohan did not want Robert Kahre, who testified during the trial, to talk to reporters after the trial because his client and five others still face additional charges in a separate criminal tax case set for trial in January. That case alleges Kahre hid assets by having relatives or friends buy property in their names using his funds. Once the criminal cases are over, Kahre will pursue related civil actions he has filed against several parties, including federal prosecutor Damm, Internal Revenue Service agents and North Las Vegas police officers who had roles in the raid or indictment process.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 PM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM