Talk:Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Reducing tax liability?
Dear fellow editors: I am not an expert on the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985, but this article definitely needs work. For example, it seems to say that a person can reduce some sort of unidentified tax liability by buying certain gold coins. This statement needs to be either sourced or removed. What kind of tax liability? Federal? State? Income tax? Gift tax? Estate tax? Let's be a bit more specific. Perhaps someone who knows more about the Act can get to this before I can. Yours, Famspear 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm also confused by the sentence "claiming that they need only report the "face value" of the coin and not that actual fair market value". This seems to imply that the "face value" of the coin is not the "fair market value" of the coin. Value in what currency? If by this they mean its market value in gold eagle coins, then the face value IS the market value. However, I suspect they mean its market value in Federal Reserve Notes, with the implication being that gold eagle coins are NOT proper currency, that Federal Reserve Notes ARE proper currency, and that the only determinate of value is in relation to FRNs. Anyway, that seriously needs to be clarified. Are these coins currency, and a measure of value or aren't they? Bozimmerman 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dear editors: I have re-organized and re-written the tax-related parts of the article. Also, there was some confusion about the Kahre case that I have (hopefully) clarified).
-
- Regarding editor Bozimmerman's questions: Are the gold coins "currency," and are they a "measure of value"? I'm not sure what you mean. I'll try to answer this way.
-
- Essentially, you are correct in your understanding that the fair market value of the gold coins is greater than the face value of the coins. That means that paying someone with a "one dollar" gold coin will get you more than one dollar value of goods and services.
-
- Turned around the other way, assume that you are a plumber by trade, and that someone calls you and asks you to provide, say, $100 worth of plumbing work. That means that if you did the work, you would agree to take exactly 100 "one dollar" Federal Reserve notes as fair payment.
-
- Now, suppose your customer is a collector who holds a lot of gold coins (and knows a lot about what the coins are worth). Suppose you and he agree that you will be paid in gold coins, not Federal Reserve notes. Because of the market for gold coins or whatever, that person will insist that you agree that he is going to pay you less than one hundred "one dollar" gold coins for your "one hundred dollars worth of plumbing work." Certain gold or silver coins are simply worth more to most people than their face amount.
-
- To put it another way, the one dollar gold coin is simply worth more in the market place than the one dollar Federal Reserve note -- even if both are legal tender for antecedent debts. The whole "legal tender" versus "not legal tender" issues and "circulating" versus "not circulating" issues are pretty much immaterial in this sense. For example, it's not a question of whether Federal Reserve notes are "currency" or not (although they are currency, of course). It wouldn't matter whether the "other side of the transaction" is Federal Reserve notes, or bags of ice, or Lexus automobiles. The key is that the one dollar gold coin is simply worth more to most people than a one dollar Federal Reserve note.
-
- On the tax side of it: Essentially, under U.S. Federal income tax law, if you receive gold or silver coins (say, as payment for work you perform) you are taxed at the higher fair market value of the coins -- regardless of whether the coins are legal tender or not, and regardless of whether the coins are actually "circulating" or not.
-
- I hope that clarifies a little. Yours, Famspear 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)