<< <i>once you get it post it so everyone believes me and you can apologize >>
I'm not going to email Mr. Lee. You have made a statement that people have disagreed with. You can try to prove it to be correct or not - it's your choice, and if you were correct I will be happy to apologize. I believe, however, that you misinterpreted/misunderstood at least part of what you were told or read.
I do recall exchanging views about new 2006 US regulations regarding reporting of bullion vs. scarcer gold coins deemed to be bullion. These were regulations promulgated by the US Treasury Department.
I do recall a threshold approximating 50% of bullion valuation but such threshold had nothing to do with MS-65 grades or possible confiscation.
At the time, I do recall that values of pre generic MS-64 graded 1933 gold coinage passed muster whereas MS-63 values did not. But these were based on valuations NOT based on a grade as specified by the US Treasury Dept.
Now that bullion values and graded coin valuations have risen this year, we may have to do some more number crunching to see where we are.
I still believe that generic MS-64 pre 1933 gold will pass muster.
<< <i>I do recall exchanging views about new 2006 US regulations regarding reporting of bullion vs. scarcer gold coins deemed to be bullion. These were regulations promulgated by the US Treasury Department.
I do recall a threshold approximating 50% of bullion valuation but such threshold had nothing to do with MS-65 grades or possible confiscation.
At the time, I do recall that values of pre generic MS-64 graded 1933 gold coinage passed muster whereas MS-63 values did not. But these were based on valuations NOT based on a grade as specified by the US Treasury Dept.
Now that bullion values and graded coin valuations have risen this year, we may have to do some more number crunching to see where we are.
I still believe that generic MS-64 pre 1933 gold will pass muster. >>
Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter?
<<<<<<<<<<earlygoldnut: You said the following which I will respond in CAPS after each of your pertinent and quite observant comments:
<< First, dealers have always been required to file cash reports after certain conditions were met whether the customer was buying bullion, low grade 20.00's or rare coins. >>
CORRECT. I HOPE I HAD MADE THIS PREVIOUSLY CLEAR ON THIS. ACTUALLY THE CASH REPORTS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR ABOUT 10-15 YEARS OR SO (I FORGET EXACTLY HOW LONG AGO).
<< Now in reading the new regulation and ICTA"s new paperwork the only thing that is completely clear is that the definition of bullion seems to have been changed to mean anything that derives 50% or more of it's value from the metal content of the item, known also as a "covered item" >>
AGAIN, CORRECT. EXCEPT THAT THE PATRIOT ACT SECTION MADE IT MORE EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT TRANSACTIONS OF LESS THAN $10,000 WHEN DONE REPETITIVELY IN A PERIOD OF "CLOSE IN TIME" TOTALLING MORE THAN $10,000 IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE reporting REQUIREMENTS.
THE KEY POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THE BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REGULATIONS ARE NOW BEING USED AS PART OF THE PATRIOT ACT (AS A DUPLICATE REQUIREMENT UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE) FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. THE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY ARE DIFFERENT UNDER EACH STATUTE!!!!
<< If someone can please point out any specific language that changes the current requirements or scope of 1099 or 8300 reporting requirements please post them. As far as I can tell by reading all of this stuff is that a plan is required if you do x amount of business in covered items, no additional items are listed for dealer reporting and it doesn't seem like anything new has been added to the cash instrument list. >>
AGREED, NO CHANGE TO THE IRS FORM 1099 OR FORM 8300 reporting REQUIREMENTS IN THEMSELVES. I HOPE THAT I HAVE NOT MADE ANYONE THINK OTHERWISE. HOWEVER, THE DEFINITION OF CASH APPEARS TO BE BEEN WIDENED TO INCLUDE BULLION AND COIN BULLION.
EXAMPLE; NO CHANGE WHEN SOME ONE PAYS WITH $20,000 CASH TO BUY $5,000 FACE VALUE 90% US SILVER COINS. THAT IS STILL A CASH PAYMENT SUBJECT TO THE reporting OF FORM 8300 AS BEFORE. THE PAYMENT OF $20,000 BY CHECK FOR THE SAME $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF US 90% SILVER COINS WAS NOT REPORTABLE PREVIOUSLY. HOWEVER, STARTING IN 2006, SUCH SAME $20,000 CHECK PAYMENT FOR THE $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF 90% US SILVER COINS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECT TO THE PATRIOT ACT REQUIREMENTS BUT NOT UNDER THE OLD AND STILL CURRENT BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REQUIREMENTS.
WHY IS THIS SO? APPARENTLY, THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE WRITERS OF THE PATRIOT ACT TO INCLUDE THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF US BULLION COINS IN THE DEFINITION OF CASH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BASED ON THIS SCENARIO, EVEN A TRADE OF US GOLD COINS FOR OTHER US GOLD COINS OR SILVER COINS MAY BE SEEN AND DEFINED AS A CASH TRANSACTION!!! I SUSPECT THAT THE 50% RATIO OF BULLION VALUATION OF THE COINS FULL VALUE AS MENTIONED BEFORE WAS SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE BUT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS. IT IS BASED ON MY OPINION ONLY..
<< <i>Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter? >>
It does matter. A dealer and a collector who are honest as the day this long in the summer may inadvertently break the law if they fail to "report" the transaction on the prescribed form BSA 8300 as shown below.
Penalties and fines could ensue making this a matter of upmost importance.
STARTING IN 2006, SUCH SAME $20,000 CHECK PAYMENT FOR THE $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF 90% US SILVER COINS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECT TO THE PATRIOT ACT REQUIREMENTS BUT was not UNDER THE OLD BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REQUIREMENTS.
WHY IS THIS SO? APPARENTLY, THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE WRITERS OF THE PATRIOT ACT TO INCLUDE THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF US BULLION COINS IN THE DEFINITION OF CASH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BASED ON THIS SCENARIO, EVEN A TRADE OF US GOLD COINS FOR OTHER US GOLD COINS OR SILVER COINS MAY BE SEEN AND DEFINED AS A CASH TRANSACTION!!! I SUSPECT THAT THE 50% RATIO OF BULLION VALUATION OF THE COINS FULL VALUE AS MENTIONED BEFORE WAS SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE BUT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS. IT IS BASED ON MY OPINION ONLY..
By the way, I realize that the bullion values have risen substantially in 2006. A check payment of $15,000 or so for a $2,000 face value of junk silver now REQUIRES reporting under the Patriot Act 2 on form 8300!!!!
<< <i>Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter? >>
It does matter. A dealer and a collector who are honest as the day this long in the summer may inadvertently break the law if they fail to "report" the transaction on the prescribed form BSA 8300 as shown below. >>
I meant do ask does it matter financially whether a coin is considered "bullion" not. I presume it does not, outside of adminstrative costs for compliance.
January 1,2006 the New definition of of rare coins is MS65 or better, in addition any coin less than a 50% premium over melt the coin is now legally deemed as bullion, thus subjet to confiscation. Look it up!
Comments
<< <i>once you get it post it so everyone believes me and you can apologize >>
I'm not going to email Mr. Lee. You have made a statement that people have disagreed with. You can try to prove it to be correct or not - it's your choice, and if you were correct I will be happy to apologize. I believe, however, that you misinterpreted/misunderstood at least part of what you were told or read.
I do recall a threshold approximating 50% of bullion valuation but such threshold had nothing to do with MS-65 grades or possible confiscation.
At the time, I do recall that values of pre generic MS-64 graded 1933 gold coinage passed muster whereas MS-63 values did not. But these were based on valuations NOT based on a grade as specified by the US Treasury Dept.
Now that bullion values and graded coin valuations have risen this year, we may have to do some more number crunching to see where we are.
I still believe that generic MS-64 pre 1933 gold will pass muster.
<< <i>I do recall exchanging views about new 2006 US regulations regarding reporting of bullion vs. scarcer gold coins deemed to be bullion. These were regulations promulgated by the US Treasury Department.
I do recall a threshold approximating 50% of bullion valuation but such threshold had nothing to do with MS-65 grades or possible confiscation.
At the time, I do recall that values of pre generic MS-64 graded 1933 gold coinage passed muster whereas MS-63 values did not. But these were based on valuations NOT based on a grade as specified by the US Treasury Dept.
Now that bullion values and graded coin valuations have risen this year, we may have to do some more number crunching to see where we are.
I still believe that generic MS-64 pre 1933 gold will pass muster. >>
Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter?
<< <i>January 1,2006 the New definition of of rare coins is MS65 or better >>
Citation? Something other than this financial "guru" of yours.
Russ, NCNE
This is the thread about money laundering.
<<<<<<<<<<earlygoldnut: You said the following which I will respond in CAPS after each of your pertinent and quite observant comments:
<< First, dealers have always been required to file cash reports after certain conditions were met whether the customer was buying bullion, low grade 20.00's or rare coins. >>
CORRECT. I HOPE I HAD MADE THIS PREVIOUSLY CLEAR ON THIS. ACTUALLY THE CASH REPORTS HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR ABOUT 10-15 YEARS OR SO (I FORGET EXACTLY HOW LONG AGO).
<< Now in reading the new regulation and ICTA"s new paperwork the only thing that is completely clear is that the definition of bullion seems to have been changed to mean anything that derives 50% or more of it's value from the metal content of the item, known also as a "covered item" >>
AGAIN, CORRECT. EXCEPT THAT THE PATRIOT ACT SECTION MADE IT MORE EXPLICITLY CLEAR THAT TRANSACTIONS OF LESS THAN $10,000 WHEN DONE REPETITIVELY IN A PERIOD OF "CLOSE IN TIME" TOTALLING MORE THAN $10,000 IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE reporting REQUIREMENTS.
THE KEY POINT I AM MAKING HERE IS THAT FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, THE BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REGULATIONS ARE NOW BEING USED AS PART OF THE PATRIOT ACT (AS A DUPLICATE REQUIREMENT UNDER ANOTHER STATUTE) FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE. THE PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY ARE DIFFERENT UNDER EACH STATUTE!!!!
<< If someone can please point out any specific language that changes the current requirements or scope of 1099 or 8300 reporting requirements please post them. As far as I can tell by reading all of this stuff is that a plan is required if you do x amount of business in covered items, no additional items are listed for dealer reporting and it doesn't seem like anything new has been added to the cash instrument list. >>
AGREED, NO CHANGE TO THE IRS FORM 1099 OR FORM 8300 reporting REQUIREMENTS IN THEMSELVES. I HOPE THAT I HAVE NOT MADE ANYONE THINK OTHERWISE. HOWEVER, THE DEFINITION OF CASH APPEARS TO BE BEEN WIDENED TO INCLUDE BULLION AND COIN BULLION.
EXAMPLE; NO CHANGE WHEN SOME ONE PAYS WITH $20,000 CASH TO BUY $5,000 FACE VALUE 90% US SILVER COINS. THAT IS STILL A CASH PAYMENT SUBJECT TO THE reporting OF FORM 8300 AS BEFORE. THE PAYMENT OF $20,000 BY CHECK FOR THE SAME $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF US 90% SILVER COINS WAS NOT REPORTABLE PREVIOUSLY. HOWEVER, STARTING IN 2006, SUCH SAME $20,000 CHECK PAYMENT FOR THE $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF 90% US SILVER COINS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECT TO THE PATRIOT ACT REQUIREMENTS BUT NOT UNDER THE OLD AND STILL CURRENT BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REQUIREMENTS.
WHY IS THIS SO? APPARENTLY, THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE WRITERS OF THE PATRIOT ACT TO INCLUDE THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF US BULLION COINS IN THE DEFINITION OF CASH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BASED ON THIS SCENARIO, EVEN A TRADE OF US GOLD COINS FOR OTHER US GOLD COINS OR SILVER COINS MAY BE SEEN AND DEFINED AS A CASH TRANSACTION!!! I SUSPECT THAT THE 50% RATIO OF BULLION VALUATION OF THE COINS FULL VALUE AS MENTIONED BEFORE WAS SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE BUT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS. IT IS BASED ON MY OPINION ONLY..
THIS IS A HUGE CHANGE!!!!! >>>>>>>
<< <i>Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter? >>
It does matter. A dealer and a collector who are honest as the day this long in the summer may inadvertently break the law if they fail to "report" the transaction on the prescribed form BSA 8300 as shown below.
Penalties and fines could ensue making this a matter of upmost importance.
STARTING IN 2006, SUCH SAME $20,000 CHECK PAYMENT FOR THE $5,000 IN FACE VALUE OF 90% US SILVER COINS COULD VERY WELL BE SUBJECT TO THE PATRIOT ACT REQUIREMENTS BUT was not UNDER THE OLD BSA/IRS FORM 8300 REQUIREMENTS.
WHY IS THIS SO? APPARENTLY, THERE IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THE WRITERS OF THE PATRIOT ACT TO INCLUDE THE "FAIR MARKET VALUE" OF US BULLION COINS IN THE DEFINITION OF CASH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. BASED ON THIS SCENARIO, EVEN A TRADE OF US GOLD COINS FOR OTHER US GOLD COINS OR SILVER COINS MAY BE SEEN AND DEFINED AS A CASH TRANSACTION!!! I SUSPECT THAT THE 50% RATIO OF BULLION VALUATION OF THE COINS FULL VALUE AS MENTIONED BEFORE WAS SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE BUT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE THIS. IT IS BASED ON MY OPINION ONLY..
By the way, I realize that the bullion values have risen substantially in 2006. A check payment of $15,000 or so for a $2,000 face value of junk silver now REQUIRES reporting under the Patriot Act 2 on form 8300!!!!
Now here is a rare coin. Not for a newbie though. This one requires some digging to understand.
Link
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
<< <i>Connecticoin: You said:
<< <i>Unless one is engaging in illegal activity or trying to hide income, why does this matter? >>
It does matter. A dealer and a collector who are honest as the day this long in the summer may inadvertently break the law if they fail to "report" the transaction on the prescribed form BSA 8300 as shown below.
>>
I meant do ask does it matter financially whether a coin is considered "bullion" not. I presume it does not, outside of adminstrative costs for compliance.
I suspect that you are using the word "rare" instead of the more correct term non-generic gold coins.
Once you replace the word rare with non-generic then you will get everyone on the same semantic page as you.
However, the MS-65 and confication that you speak of are not in the US Patriot Act 2. Yes, the 50% is there but it is all about "reporting."
Your friend is using the backdoor of valuing the 50% and coming up with the MS-65 grade as a avoidance? I still have MS-64 as the standard.
WHERE?---URL please. Thank you.
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>> I would also add this to your knowledge-collecting efforts: a subscription to the Rosen Numismatic Advisory. < >>
<< <i>> It is written by Maurice Rosen... < >>
If you want money making numismatic investments, stay away from Maurice Rosen.