Now you're just being obtuse and intentionally difficult ... Again, if there was no dilemma regarding the ethics of trading money that did not have legal taxes paid on it, per simple logic ... 1) It would not have been raised and included as a variable for consideration 2) There would be no dilemma in the first place
You drew that chart just for me? I am honored. To be fair, Nobert did not say how much money is in consideration here. Assuming it is in the USA, what if it was $10,000? If his friend earned only $10,000 that year, and is filing as a single individual, he owes no tax on it. So no need to pay taxes on it. So he gives it to Nobert to trade with. What if it was $1,000,000, no tax paid, and Nobert was given the $1,000,000 to trade with? Nobert is not liable for any taxes his friend did not pay, unless they conspired to launder the money. Talk about balls of wax I guess.
As I have explained ... about 9 times. And I've taken tests that cover this information ... so yeah .. I kinda know it. Yes, Nobert could be liable during the Recovery process, as the Federal Government would simply confiscate the money that Nobert has, if it deems it necessary to the Recovery Process, as it was funds earned from Capital that did not have taxes paid on it. In fact, legally (though I would have to consult with my Lawyer on this one) ... it could actually involve Nobert in the Criminal Process as well, if he had knowledge of it, which he definitely seems to have knowledge of it And "deems" is completely up to the whims of the Government during that process.
So what happens if Nobert loses the $1,000,000? Where does the government get the money from? Nobert, who unknowingly took money from his friend who did not pay taxes on it? And what if Nobert earned enough profit on that $1,000,000 and paid the exact amount of money that his friend owed on the taxes? And what if Nobert deferred his own taxes to the following year, and then paid the tax HE owed with more profits from the $1,000,000 that was given to him, the taxes on which he paid the previous yer? Is his friend totally off the hook now? If not, where does his friend come up with the money, when Nobert has it all? Etc etc ad nauseum.
And welcome to the nightmare of not having to worry about all that stuff, because if Nobert manages to lose all of his friend's money, his biggest challenge will NOT be the taxing authority. It will be his friendship with the lender, and the worry of if he will become a pickaxe-wielding maniac out for bits of skull.
Again. You are missing the point. This has nothing to do with Nobert losing his friends money. This has everything to do with knowingly participating in Capital and is looking to take a draw from Capital that he is aware has not had Taxes legally paid on it. Nobert could gain 100%, or lose 100%. That doesn't matter. What matters, is that Nobert knowingly participating in Capital and is looking to take a draw from Capital that he is aware has not had Taxes legally paid on it.
I suppose at this point we'll leave it up to Nobert to clarify the concerns more clearly, now that we have gummed up the thread with our spam. Sorry about that @Nobert. :-\