This feels directly related to my series of articles, so I will respond.
First, the point of my series was correcting the thing you are discussing, for the record. Because I'm seeing a lot of overpayment too.
Second, this:
"So, I'm publicly declaring that any upvote from me is a gift"
Won't hold up for even a second in any court and is not a viable strategy. Do not use it. You don't get to decide what a taxable gift is. Otherwise, nobody would need to pay income tax as we'd all have such benevolence from our employers, gifting us all the time. The IRS can easily prove that "work" went into any comment that can be upvoted, if they choose to call this income.
The most obvious hole in your gift suggestion is YOU do not give the gift, the blockchain does. You can't declare something a gift that doesn't come FROM you. You are merely the assigner of value, you do not PROCESS the transaction.
You would literally be better off just declaring nothing and trying to tax evade than use this argument.
Now, a direct SBD transfer from your account, that could be argued to be a gift.
I'm not saying your LOGIC is bad, but the courtroom is not based on logic but on "precedent".
Philosophically, I agree with the majority of what you are saying. However, I continue to LOL at the idea of private roads.
Yeah, I totally want TimeWarner Cable running the toll booth on the GWB.
The changes you seek would be better sought with the sword than with the pen.
This wasn't at you direcctly. I had another in mind. I thought you had some sense in your articles at least.
The gift is made by my stake weighted vote. Giving you a vote is less work than writing you a check or giving you cash. Technically if I write you a check it's the bank that's giving you the gift not me. So, I'm not sure I agree with you there. It's my stake doing the work. So, it's my gift. Not sure you have to declare gifts either. So, I'm not planning on declaring gifts given to me unless that's absolutely necessary. To avoid threat of violence on me and my person.
As for courts they are kangaroo courts. They are administrating maritime law in an illegal fashion. I'd start by questioning their authority and jurisdiction before even talking to them about what constitutes a gift.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Philosophically, we are very closely aligned.
Practically, though, I can tell you that this won't work:
"Giving you a vote is less work than writing you a check or giving you cash. Technically if I write you a check it's the bank that's giving you the gift not me. So, I'm not sure I agree with you there. "
The bank is the custodian of your funds in your account which you have a legal claim to. Therefore, the gift is from you.
The blockchain is not your custodian. You do not own the Steem your vote gives out. The steem your vote tags for later payment doesn't even exist yet. It's literally impossible to be yours, so you cannot gift it. All you have done is vote for who should get disbursement in a stake-weighted fashion.
If you don't own it, LEGAL TITLE, you cannot gift it.
This is game over. There is no legal argument you can counter this fact with.
You will need the sword to effect the changes you want, not the pen or the courtroom.
PS - You have my sword, incidentally, should you choose to go that route.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I actually think you an error here. When you deposit funds the bank legally owns them. They don't tell you that, but that appears to be the way it works. That's why things like bail ins are possible and legal. So, the idea that it's a gift with a check but not a block doesn't seem to hold.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're confusing the idea of having a counterparty with having a legal claim to your account.
Yes, the bank is your counterparty because they can spend your money without your permission (a separate problem).
No, because you still have a legal claim to the money. You can claim title. Having a legal claim is different than technically owning, but for our purposes here, it's the same.
There is no argument you can make that you own un-created rewards on a block-chain. You cannot own something that doesn't exist.
Whataboutism for your checking accounts is irrelevant.
I guarantee you that your argument would get nowhere in court, which as we have already established, is not a commentary on the validity of it otherwise.
PS - The appropriate tool for your grievances is the sword, as you cannot win with the pen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And you think the state holds legal
Title to decentralized currency to grant them a jurisdiction in the first place?
Where's the split title occur?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, I don't. As I noted, I don't agree with the state's argument.
What the state does have is guns, prosecutors, and immunity from the law. And they are the ones who decide if you can call something a "gift" or not.
Just facts, no philosophy.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pretty sure I own the block chain. 22k/25M stake in this biatch. The island. She's mine. AHAHAHAHAHAH.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, no, you don't. Not anymore than you would own a company for owning well under 1% of the shares.
However, this does present an interesting tax question - what if you process the block on your own witness server that handles the disbursement? There may be an argument that if you actually own/process that block officially, the legal status of transactions within that block, for you, might change.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also, oof, damned with faint praise:
"This want't at you direcctly. I had another in mind. I thought you had some sense in your articles at least."
If you know of a more aggressive and legally rational argument trying to reduce people's tax liability around these parts, I'd love to see it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One of the more important reasons to resist the IRS.
That they get to decide, ex post facto, what gets to be a gift or a purchase, or a deduction .
The IRS is a terrorist organization.
In that there main job is to terrorize people.
The money that gets sent to the IRS, then get sent to the FED where it is thrown in a furnace.
It doesn't pay for roads or anything. It is a fee for having the joy of using US$s
And although @aggroed's logic is solid, I too know that it will fail so fast in court.
You may even be charged with contempt of court if you tried to argue it after it was slapped down.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's amazing what the American people put up with on a daily basis.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit