We recently caught up with Thomas Woods the author of the best selling book Meltdown. Learn what he has to say about auditing the Federal Reserve (FED).

Currently, over 300 Congressmen Republicans and Democrats in the House Of Representatives have co-sponsored a Bill HR 1207 – dubbed Ron Paul’s Audit the FED Bill, which would allow Congress to audit the FED.

With the national debt spiraling out of control and fiscal policy seemingly unmanageable, many taxpayers want to see the FED audited. The proposed bill will force the FED open their books to the US taxpayers and their Representatives.

FED Chairman, Ben Bernanke and US Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, according to Thomas Woods, are deeply concerned about the possibility of the FED being audited. What is even more suspicious to Woods is that Tim Geithner has publicly expressed concerns although he is not part of the FED.

You can learn more about Thomas Woods here

http://www.thomasewoods.com/books/mel…

Ok, now it’s time to solve the mystery. (Final Post) [see previous here]

In 1978 Jimmy Carter reorganized the government with this order, and this took the issue of retirement account prohibited transactions away from the domain of the IRS and gave it to the Department of Labor (DOL).

This fact was unknown to (or possibly ignored by) the ROBS promoters who claimed the IRS ROBS letter confirmed the validity of the ROBS strategy. The truth is that the IRS letter did not say whether or not the ROBS strategy creates a prohibited transaction because the IRS didn’t have the authority to say it. It was the authority of DOL. Ah, what fun bureaucracy can be.

Speaking with the Proper Authority

Now, I’ve known about this transfer of authority ever since the creator of the IRA LLC (late attorney Debra Buchanan) told me about it back in 2004. So I’ve been in close contact with DOL employees for several years. Here’s where the bureaucracy gets funny (or scary, depending on how you look at it).

A couple of weeks after the IRS ROBS letter came out, I called my friendly DOL contacts to ask, “What do you think of the ROBS strategy that the IRS just wrote a letter about?” They responded with, “What letter? What is ROBS?”

[If my friends at the IRS and DOL are reading this now, don't take offense. Everyone knows that government agency intercommunication is kind of like Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster. It's not your fault.]

So I faxed the IRS ROBS letter over to DOL. I was happy to do this for the IRS because I know they are really busy.

Finally… the Meeting

My annual trip to Washington, D.C. was scheduled for about six weeks later. So this gave DOL plenty of time to review the letter so we could discuss it at our meeting.

When the meeting came in December, all of the mystery surrounding ROBS collapsed with a couple of straightforward sentences out of the mouths of the decision makers at DOL (paraphrased):

The ‘qualifying employer securities’ exemption means that transaction of the plan acquiring stock from the C corporation is exempt. BUT, this exemption doesn’t throw the rules out the window for looking at the whole strategy. This whole strategy generally provides an ‘outside-of-the-plan’ benefit to the participant, who is a disqualified person. Thus this strategy creates a prohibited transaction.

Bear in mind this unofficial conversation is, well, not official. What would make it official is if I (or anyone else) submitted a written request for a DOL “Advisory Opinion” letter that explains whether the ROBS strategy is a prohibited transaction.

These DOL guys indicated that such a request would be met with an Advisory Opinion declaring ROBS illegal.

Don’t Kill the Messenger

There it is, folks. End of story. ROBS is a prohibited transaction. Many people and attorneys can disagree, but it comes down to 4 guys at this government agency in Washington, D.C. to provide the interpretation of the prohibited transaction law. In other words, it doesn’t matter what anybody thinks except for them. And they think you owe the government a 115% tax (on the amount of money involved in the scheme) if you do a ROBS.

Up until this meeting, I was just as hopeful as anyone that ROBS would come out of the gray area in a favorable conclusion. I don’t want to end this topic on an disappointing note, so I will be throwing out some ROBS alternatives in a future post.

[This is a continuation of a previous post. You should read that one first so this makes sense.]

The IRS Responds

For the first time ever, the IRS actually addressed the “financing a small business with an IRA or 401(k)” strategy. They called it “ROBS” for “roll over business startup,” and issued a letter on October 1, 2008. This letter basically stated:

• We know about the ROBS strategy
• We are concerned about it for several reasons

Celebrate and Ignore

Most ROBS promoters spun the IRS ROBS letter as a long-awaited government blessing for the strategy. They said that the concerns that the IRS listed were administrative errors, such as not filing the plan’s annual valuation report, not telling the corporation’s employees that they can also participate in the plan, and not ever launching a bona fide business in the first place. “These can be avoided. Read between the lines here.”

According to ROBS promoters, what was between the lines is that the IRS implied that the ROBS strategy was legitimate in the first place.

You would think my quest for a final answer to “Is the ROBS strategy legal or illegal?” would lead me to the IRS building in Washington, D.C… Not so. What ROBS promoters were ignoring (or unaware of) is that a strange, mostly unknown Presidential move from the 70s placed this matter outside of the IRS and onto a different government agency. In fact, the IRS letter talked around the core ROBS issue and never faced “Is the ROBS strategy legal or illegal?” head on—because, after the move in the 70s, they actually don’t have the legal authority to comment or decide on the issue.

What Now?

Determined to get to the bottom of this, I went to the other government agency.

Oh yeah, let me tell you why this matter is so important: If the ROBS promoters are wrong, everyone who believed them will be subject to a tax of at least 115% of the amount of funds involved in the strategy. OUCH!

[to be continued]

Guidant calls it Audeo. Benetrends calls it Rainmaker. SDCooper calls it ERSOP. It goes by many names and it’s gotten a lot of attention from the franchise industry and, as of about a year ago, the IRS. The IRS calls it “ROBS” for Roll-Over Business Startup.

What is it?

It’s a strategy where a person with retirement funds:

1. Forms a C corporation.
2. Uses the new C corporation to adopt a 401(k) or profit-sharing plan.
3. Performs a rollover from existing retirement funds (IRA, 401k, etc) into the new 401(k) plan.
4. Directs the new 401(k) plan to invest into the new C corporation by purchasing shares of stock.
5. Now this person has a C corporation with some or all of their retirement funds in it, and they are told they can use the funds to run the corporation, launch a venture, buy a franchise, and even pay themselves a salary.

Special Powers – For Good or Evil?

This is a tremendously powerful strategy. The problem? Many attorneys think it’s illegal because of the prohibited transaction rules. Those rules say that the accounthoder (a.k.a. plan participant) is classified as a “disqualified person,” meaning that the retirement plan can’t transact with him or do things designed to benefit him outside of growing the plan.

To complicate matters, many other attorneys think it’s legal and on very solid ground. Why the disagreement? The pro-ROBS attorneys say that a special exemption throws the prohibited transaction rules out the window when you classify the transfer of the C corporation stock as “qualifying employer securities.”

A Quest for the Final Answer

About a year ago, my phone was ringing off the hook from people saying, “Some say it’s legal, some say it’s illegal. What’s the truth? I don’t want to risk my retirement fund on something sketchy!”

So I set out to get to the bottom of it, and the outcome will surprise you. Stay tuned for the tale of my trip to Washington, D.C. to meet with the guys with whom the buck stops.

Each year entrepreneurs pitch Venture Capital firms in hopes that their startup company or business expansion will get funded by them. The vast majority do not get funded. Furthermore, “getting funding” almost always means the entrepreneur must sell a sizable piece of his company to the VC.

Getting funded by a VC is a dream, but it can easily turn into a nightmare for both the entrepreneur and the VC. Because the VC owns a piece of the company, if further rounds of funding are needed in the future it could mean diluting only the founder’s ownership, depending on how the contracts were setup. It’s not too uncommon for founders to eventually wind up with a minority stake in their own company and to lose control of it. For the VC, there’s a big chance of failure. They usually need an exit strategy, such as taking the company public to sell its shares to the marketplace or to sell the company to a private party. But before they sell it, they need to try to juice up the revenue of the company to max out the sales price. When maxing out revenue becomes the primary unconditional focus, it’s easy for the business to go in a very different direction than the founder had intended.

The above horrors can happen when an entrepreneur does get funding. Let’s not forget that most entrepreneurs seeking capital just don’t get funded.

These are problems. And yet the world has a way about finding solutions to problems and getting them to those who can benefit. Sometimes the solution can be so incredibly simple that it’s hard to believe. In the case of funding a small business, the solution I see is a matter of breaking the habit of selling equity.

Instead, sell revenue. A slice of your gross revenue, that is. Here are the benefits when raising capital:

• Keep all of your company. Don’t sell it to investors.
• A flexible payment. In a month with low sales, your payment to the investor is lower. In a month with higher sales, your payment to the investor is higher.
• More long term profit is kept. Once you’ve paid the investor fully as agreed, you still own and control all of your company.

Here are the benefits to the investor:

• A built in exit strategy. A revenue participation contract can have a fixed repayment period or a fixed repayment amount, similar to debt.
• Lower risk. It’s easier to project gross revenues than it is to project profit. An investor whose repayment is a percentage of gross revenue only needs to be confident the entrepreneur can and will make the payments.
• More winners. Because of the built in exit strategy, the investor doesn’t have to assume most of their investments will tank and thus doesn’t need to have an astronomical ROI for the slim few that succeed.

For example, an entrepreneur has a business with $100k in gross income and $48k in net income. He needs $50k to expand his business by hiring and training a sales force and getting a larger office. He projects that in 6 months the expansion will result in an increase to $400k in gross income and $250k in net income. So an investor pays $50k to buy the right to receive 20% of the business’s gross revenue each month until those payments total $100k.

The investor will make a 100% ROI once the repayment is completed. If all goes as planned, that 100% ROI will be paid in under 18 months. It could happen faster or slower, depending on how well the business performs as projected.

For the entrepreneur seeking capital, the chances of finding an investor (or investors) can significantly broaden when he can pitch a lower risk investment that has a built in exit strategy.

What’s more, this model is very compatible with smaller investment amounts. In today’s world, a startup with tons of potential might not be able to get VCs’ attention unless they need millions of dollars. With revenue participation contracts, an entpreneur can seek out tens of thousands or a few hundred thousand dollars in capital from smaller local investors and businessmen. That also means the entpreneur may be dealing with a kinder local businessman rather than heading out to Silicon Valley to deal with the sharks.

Prohibited transactions is a chief topic when exploring self-directed IRA & Solo 401(k) investing. When a person first discovers that his retirement accounts have been chained to Wall Street brokerages without necessity, his mind starts to imagine the possibilities.

Real Estate? Yes.
Private Businesses? Sure.
Precious Metals? Absolutely.
Getting my hands on my retirement money now? Slow down there.

There are two types of limitations on the average retirement account. One is an unnecessary restriction of investment options to securities products. That can be eliminated through restructuring your accounts and funds. The second limitation is legal and cannot be removed.

Setting up a self-directed IRA or 401(k) is about removing limitations. Once you have it setup outside the nearly monopolistic network of securities dealers, you can invest in almost anything… but you must fully understand the legal limitations.

The general premise behind prohibited transaction rules is that the government wants you to grow your retirement account as big as possible because they plan to tax it later on when you distribute the funds to yourself for spending. Without prohibited transactions rules, anyone in their right mind would grow their retirement account and then make “losing investments” that actually put their retirement funds into their own hands.

For example, imagine you grow your IRA to $1 million and now you’re ready to get that money into your own hands so you can spend it. You could distribute it to yourself and pay ordinary income taxes on the distributions. Or you could invest it into your business that you personally own and operate. The latter could be an “investment” from the IRA. Once the money is in your business you could do whatever you want with it. And maybe your business doesn’t pay anything back to your IRA. Maybe it was a “losing investment” for your IRA. Taxes avoided. Woo hoo!

The only problem with the above scenario is that the real loser isn’t your IRA–it’s the government who didn’t collect distribution taxes because your IRA “lost” all its money. For this reason, the prohibited transaction rules make the above scenario illegal. The government made the PT rules to ensure that you don’t end up “losing” your retirement money. There are six PT rules. Four of the rules are commonly quoted, written about, and understood easily. The remaining two rules seem to elude or mystify most people, so let me bring clarity to the matter.

In order to be legally compliant, every retirement plan transaction must involve a genuine effort to benefit the retirement plan itself without benefiting the plan owner or his relatives. Let’s go ahead and knock out the most common strategies that are wrongly believed to successfully “get around” the rules:

Benefit Swapping

Joe & Frank are friends and each of them setup a self-directed IRA. Joe’s IRA loans $50,000 to Frank and Frank’s IRA loans $50,000 to Joe. This doesn’t break the 4 rules that are most focused on, but it does break the usually-ignored rules. For each loan transaction the borrower is not a “disqualified person” for the IRA to transact with, but the loan is a conflict of interest for the IRA owner because he expects to receive a loan back from the other person’s IRA. Because his decision to extend the loan from his IRA involves the expectation of a chain of events that is designed to benefit him personally, this is a prohibited transaction.

Another example would be if Joe’s IRA and Frank’s IRA each bought a vacation condo, and each IRA let the other person stay in the condo. Real estate is a popular investment for self-directed IRAs, but if an IRA owns real estate its owner (and his relatives) are not allowed to make personal use of the property, regardless of whether fair market rent is paid. If Joe vacationed in property owned by Frank’s IRA and Frank vacationed in property owned by Joe’s IRA, it would be a prohibited transaction. Just like the loan swapping, what makes it prohibited is the fact that when the IRA owner made the decision to enter into the transaction, he expected to receive a personal benefit as a result of the transaction. This applies to direct benefis and indirect benefits that come about as an expected chain of events.

Strawperson

Joe wants to sell his house, but he can’t find a buyer. His IRA has enough money in it to buy the house from Joe, but that would be a prohibited transaction because Joe is a disqualified person. So Joe arranges for his friend Frank to buy the house from him who will later sell the house to Joe’s IRA. Joe thinks he didn’t break any rules because Frank is not related to Joe and thus is not a disqualified person. In this scenario, in the eyes of the law Frank is a “strawperson”… a person who is not involved in the transaction for genuine reasons. Frank doesn’t really want to buy and then own Joe’s house. He is just entering into the transaction to add separation to the real transaction. The law removes the strawperson to examine the real transacting parties. In this case the real parties are Joe and his IRA. Effectively, Joe sold his house to his IRA. That is a prohibited transaction and it remains a prohibited transaction even with Frank the strawperson inserted into the chain of transactions.

The same strawperson strategy fails the test no matter how it is constructed. If Joe’s IRA loaned money to Frank and Frank subsequently loaned money to Joe, it would violate the PT rules.

The lesson

Setting up a self-directed IRA or Solo 401(k) brings your retirement funds to an unlimited investment platform in the sense that you can invest in virtually any type of asset. You will save yourself a lot of time and headache (and possibly tons of money) if you clearly understand the remaining limitation: you must invest solely to grow your retirement account without engaging in conflicts of interest.

Now that’s not so bad is it? The merits of whether the income tax is good for our country in the first place is a topic for another discussion. But within our current system, it’s not so much to ask that you avoid all conflicts of interest. Use your retirement account for its intended purpose–to grow massive wealth. There is a whole world of opportunities out there that don’t involve a potential conflict of interest!

Our publicist has done a great job getting the word out about Self-Directed IRAs, and my various writings and products related to independence, economics, investing, and freedom.

But, alas, the time has come to replace our publicist. So here’s what we’re looking for:

• Very freedom/liberty-oriented and passionate
• A basic understanding of Austrian economics and the free market
• An unlimited mindset—one that fully accepts that anything is possible and our results are up to us… only we can decide what we CAN and CAN’T accomplish together
• A realistic understanding of our world today and the terrible direction our country and our society is heading in—politically, financially, emotionally, etc. We have to be able to acknowledge and observe the problems in order to be a part of providing solutions.
• Results-oriented. We aren’t just trying to get the word out to see what happens. We are getting the word out! We set goals and then achieve them   :-D
• Experience preferred, but not required. If you have experience in public relations, awareness campaigns, or dealing with the media, that is great and will be helpful. Buuuuuut, the above requirements are much more important. The actual procedure of how to promote and make contacts and pitch ideas can be learned. Being a freedom-loving, free-market-loving, truth-knowing, positive-thinking passionate person ready to change the world cannot be learned—it’s just who you are. So that is most important, and for that reason, experience isn’t required, but it is preferred.
• Start immediately!
• Monthly salary. This doesn’t have to be a full-time job, but we will pay a substantial salary.

Be a part of a team that’s changing the world! We’ll be working to promote my book (5 Steps To Freedom) as well as my companies (Nabers Group and IRA Association). Some past exposure and events have included:

• Speaking at FreedomFest
• Writing for Forbes.com
• Contributing to articles for mint.com, realtytimes.com, Entrepreneur Magazine, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune
• Featured in trade journals
• Appearing on TV shows such as Good Morning Arizona and The Pat McMahon show

..these are just a start as we’ll be working together to continue to expose people to self-empowerment, liberty, financial freedom, Austrian economics, and similar ideas.

LIVING IN DENVER IS NOT NECESSARY. We are open to remote working arrangements. If you think you might know somebody who would be great for this position, please share this opportunity, especially on Twitter and Facebook:

Tweet This

Share on Facebook

Applicants, please send resume to prjob@jnabz.com and include a cover letter summarizing why you think this would be a great fit. I look forward to connecting with our new PR specialist!

Headlines abound, the stock market is up 40% from its March lows!!! Let’s all celebrate. Those who spoke badly of Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner have their foots in their mouths, right?

Not even close. These types of misleading headlines are the very weaponry of a financial system that tricks you, lures you, spikes your drink, robs you blind while you’re partying, and then nurses you back to sobriety in the morning by giving you another spiked drink.

Imagine you have $100 in the stock market. You experience a 40% loss. You now have $60. And, abracadabra, the economic rescuers have juiced the market back up 40%. You now have $84. Wait a tick, how exactly do I get back to $100? Well to recover from a 40% loss, you would need a 67% gain. You see, 40% of $60 is much less than 40% of $100, so the initial 40% loss was much larger than the 40% gain that followed. For those whose livelihood involves serious math, this is very obvious. For the rest of us, it should be an “ah ha” moment that exposes the red arrow, green arrow game.

Watching and listening to the financial news networks report about the stock market is like watching a sports game. And it entertains just like a sports game. In the midst of entertaining, it lulls us into watching the red and green arrows. Oh, it’s down today a few points. Hey look, it came back up. It feels very much like watching a basketball team surrender and regain the lead in a basketball game. If they are down by 40 points, and then they score 41 uncontested points, they have the lead and they win the game!

But it doesn’t work the same in percentage points. But just wait, over the long term the losses will be recovered and there will be profit, say the “experts” whose payroll checks are signed by Wall Street. If you buy that line of baloney, you will be further tricked. Because over the long term those losses will be recovered and there will be profits… but only as measured in dollars. If you factor in how over the long term those dollars buy less stuff, you will not find a substantial long-term profit.

Today the Dow closed at $9,320. But the dollar has lost over 96% of its purchasing power since 1913. Take 96% out of today’s Dow price and you get $372. In 1913, the Dow was at about $62. So the Dow Jones Industrial Average grew from $62 to $372 (in constant 1913 dollars) over a period of 96 years. That’s an annualized rate of return of 1.88%.

This bears repeating…

The Dow Jones has returned 1.88% per year for the past 96 years

Can you still get excited about a stock market that’s up 40% since its March lows when it is still a stock market that hasn’t even been able to produce an actual 2.00% return over the long run?

Or even more important questions: Is it worth the risk of losing a big chunk of the money you worked for just to “get some action” in a market that produces less than a 2.00% return over the long run? When you are down, can you wait decades without touching your money just to get back to your break-even point?

—-

Jeff Nabers is author of 5 STEPS TO FREEDOM: How to Cut Your Dependence on Institutions and Escape Financial Slavery

When an economy is based on healthy, sustainable activity with a balance of production and consumption, the type of depression we are in can’t happen. In our consumption-based economy, on the other hand, nothing can “stimulate” things back on track. This is because the track we were on is unsustainable. There’s no going back on it. American consumers can’t spend & consume more today in an effort to “save” the economy because we already spent and consumed the goods of today.

Despite the “green shoots” talk that all the economists and politicians are spreading on TV and in magazines and newspapers (pay no mind that these are the very people who didn’t see the crash coming–we are expected to now value their opinion about what’s going to happen next), what’s next isn’t good for the general economy. As illustrated by Ian Mathis of at Daily Reckoning, by the end of the year about 1.5 million jobless Americans will exhaust their unemployment benefits.

We know that unemployment is sky high right now (10% official figures and 20% as figured by shadowstats.com), but millions of those jobless Americans are receiving checks from the government that are continuing to pay for their rent, groceries, Venti 7 Pump White Mochas, etc. By year’s end, about 1.5 million Americans will no longer have a source of income. In other words, the further reduced consumption affiliated with unemployment hasn’t even come home to roost yet.

Waiting for the “general economy” to be brought back to life will turn out to be a disappointing plan. Your personal economy is what matters, and thriving is a matter of what you make for yourself. Just as the Soviet Union taught us that central planning doesn’t work, we will relearn that lesson as central planning continues to fail in the Unites States. Don’t wait around for stock markets to go into a long term rebound (as opposed to the bear market rally or “bounce back” that comes before the next leg down in every stock market crash) or for the government to get your job back for you. If anyone’s going to bring your prosperity, it’s going to be you!

The Liberty Maven blog just posted a review of my book, 5 Steps To Freedom: How to Cut Your Dependence on Institutions and Escape Financial Slavery. Here’s an excerpt:

One of the key ingredients in attaining some semblance of freedom is to become financially independent. A new book, “5 Steps To Freedom“, by Jeff Nabers and Phoebe Chongchua supplies us with some extremely effective tools to escape financial slavery. Take elements of Tom Wood’s “Meltdown“, Ron Paul’s “Manifesto“, and Peter Schiff’s “Crash Proof” all rolled into one and you come very close to describing “5 Steps To Freedom”.

The five high level… [see the whole review here]