Comment: I think you misunderstood the argument

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Through law, the US Congress (see in situ)

I think you misunderstood the argument

Suppose I find a very rare penny that coin collectors will pay a million bucks for. What the law says is that I *could* insist on using that penny to buy a piece of penny candy, if I could find a store selling it. The law doesn't say that the coin can't have value above and beyond its face value, or that I *must* use the coin at its face value. I am free to engage in a transaction based on that higher value rather than the face value.

If I agree to pay you one ounce of gold per day, what's the right way to assign a value to that transaction? Is it $50 if I give you an American eagle, $20 if I give you a double eagle, 100 Yuan if I give you a Chinese Panda, but $1740 if I give you a gold bar or round? It's a pretty lame tax avoidance argument, although far from the lamest.

But whether you agree with the ruling or not, if you file taxes on the basis of this kind of argument the IRS, rightly or wrongly, won't even give you a chance to make this argument in court. And they'll tack on a big penalty too, or worse if you're doing it on a large scale.