Do any USA states require accepting US cash for payment of goods or services? According to the United States Federal Reserve: There is no federal statute mandating that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether to accept cash unless there is a state law that says otherwise. Source: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm Are there any states, districts, regions, or territories within the USA that mandate that a private business, a person, or an organization must accept US currency or coins as payment for goods or services?
Not at the level of the state, but businesses subject to King County (WA) jurisdiction will, effective Jan. 1 2025, have to accept cash (within limits: not larger than $20 bill, not more that $200) for in-person transactions. Ad hoc exemptions are allowed in case of significant theft history, business operated at home, or with only one on-site employee.
Credit card surcharges, where a customer is charged extra for using a credit card, are prohibited in 11 states. There are also 10 states that allow merchants to offer cash or non-credit discounts, and at least in those states there is increased awareness among consumers that credit card companies charge fees. There is no law requiring credit card companies to offer their services for free, so yes, it is legal for Visa et al. to charge vendors for using a credit card. There is no principle of law that dictates what such a fee would be called, so "Transaction Fee", "Swipe Fee" and "Service Fee" are all equally good. If Visa were to charge 10% to vendors, they would probably lose all of their business, but it would not be illegal.
I wouldn't be surprised to see other states and jurisdictions with similar statutes. Fortunately, in the United States, there is a safe harbor against demands for state income taxes: For every dollar of taxable income, you can only be taxed by one state. (This was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 in Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne.) Therefore, if you show that the LLC (or its members if it's a pass-through) paid taxes to another state on the income in question (e.g., by sending a copy of the tax return), that's legally the end of the matter.
Custom is more important than the law AFAIK there is no legal requirement to provide concessional pricing for any goods or services. Custom dictates that this is more common for services than for goods but, for example, cinema’s often don’t provide concessional pricing for blockbuster movies.
The U.S. government only owns the assets deposited in its own accounts in Federal Reserve banks and profits from portions of its operations amounting to about $100 billion a year. Federal Reserve member banks are owned by private commercial banks in their region and are partially controlled by these shareholders (who have some say in electing regional Federal Reserve bank boards but not in the manner of a typical privately held company), but certain national economic policy issues delegated to the Federal Reserve's policy making entities are controlled by a Presidentially appointed (and U.S. Senate approved) Board of Directors which is really what people are talking about when they refer to the &quot;Fed&quot;. The overall structure is a complex public-private hybrid organization and this brief answer oversimplifies the matter which has many nuances and unique features. Most notably, the Federal Reserve's policy making board sets some key interest rates, sets the reserve requirements for commercial banks (together with and in coordination with the FDIC) and as a matter of practical reality, is the primary entity that regulates the money supply. The Federal Reserve's policy making arm can also authorize loans of U.S. funds to private business in certain circumstances (most prominently in recent times during the Financial Crisis). The Federal Reserve is also the primary administrator of the U.S. payments systems used for checks and similar negotiable instruments, and for wire transfers between financial institutions.
Private prosecution is allowed in New Zealand, so one possibility would be to conduct the prosecution yourself. You could either do that as a case of destruction of property, or under the Animal Welfare Act. It is not guaranteed that your charging document will be accepted (for example, if your document lacks the required content). An alternative would be to apply political pressure to the Crown Law Office, to persuade them to pursue the matter.
In general, no. When the salesperson quoted the price and you accepted it you were each bound to that price by contract. Consideration under a contract must be sufficient (something of value for something of value) but it doesn't have to be fair: you can be obliged to pay $2 million for a cupcake or sell your Picasso for $1. You were and are under no obligation to pay and could successfully sue for the return of your money. To further clarify, it doesn't matter if the store has or has not provided the goods or services when they discover their error: they are obliged to perform their side of the contract without additional payment. Further, if this was a consumer contract then some sort of consumer protection law almost certainly applies. This would probably make what the store did not only a breach of contract but an offence against the state as well.
Is Crypto the same as any foreign currency? No. Crypto is generally treated as a commodity and capital asset, like gold, and not like a currency, under U.S. tax law. Other jurisdictions vary in how they treat cryptocurrency legally and for tax purposes. Bitcoin (unlike other cryptocurrencies) is also regulated on a non-tax basis as a commodity by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Other cryptocurrencies are regulated in the U.S. as securities by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Why not regulate it as a currency and not a security? Cyptocurrencies are not very much like currencies which is why they are not regulated in that way. The basis for treating it more like a security and less like a foreign currency for securities fraud/disclosure purposes is that it is a better fit to securities law which is designed for more varied legal arrangements than foreign currency laws. Foreign currencies are backed by the full faith and credit of sovereign countries (which are non-profit entities). Also, foreign currencies are transparently based upon laws that are almost always a matter of public record and relatively straightforward. And, of course, banks and money changing firms trading in foreign currencies are subject to significant tax and financial regulation of their own, although not as securities. In contrast, like other securities, cryptocurrencies are private creatures of contract created by entities with shareholders which do not have uniform legal properties. New &quot;coins&quot; can be created in different ways in different crypto currencies, and the relationship between the cryptocurrency to the non-crypto financial markets varies. Securities-like disclosures are necessary for members of the public dealing with it to understand the risks, benefits, and mechanics of the cryptocurrency in question. The U.S. Securities And Exchange position and its basis is suggested by the ABC News story linked in the question, which states: Coinbase has been targeted by U.S. regulators in a new lawsuit Tuesday that alleges the cryptocurrency platform is operating as an unregistered securities platform and brokerage service. The lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission comes only a day after it filed charges against Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, and its founder Changpeng Zhao are accused of misusing investor funds, operating as an unregistered exchange and violating a slew of U.S. securities laws. Coinbase shares plunged nearly 15% early Tuesday. In its complaint, the SEC said Coinbase made billions acting as the middle man for cryptocurrency buyers and sellers but did not give investors lawful protections while acting as a broker. “Coinbase has for years defied the regulatory structures and evaded the disclosure requirements that Congress and the SEC have constructed for the protection of the national securities markets and investors,” the SEC said in its complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest, penalties, and other equitable relief.