Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch57s01.html

Instituted in 1970. Amended in 1995 to lower the limits to where they are today. Banks seem to fall into two classes with this: those covering their butts in case of litigation and those using it to delay transactions to reap the use of the money for a longer period. I believe that the hold on funds in the part of this I find objectionable.


5 posted on 07/06/2006 4:21:27 PM PDT by Ingtar (Prensa dos para el inglés)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ingtar

Nobody wants to do paperwork, so it's self-limiting to some degree - but basically the 10k limit is too arbitrary lots of legitimate people deal with large sums - it's just a means of identifying those with limited income whose finances don't jibe with their reported income? Stupid crooks driving maserattis on the side etc. etc.


6 posted on 07/06/2006 4:26:05 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Ingtar

Wrong. Banks do this because if they don't the FDIC will shut them down. The FDIC comes in annually and makes sure a SAR was filed on any and everything that has the potential of being money laundering.

Also, banks can't hold a deposit of cash (which is exactly what this law applies to). They must give you immediate credit.


7 posted on 07/06/2006 4:29:32 PM PDT by VegasCowboy ("...he wore his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to feel.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson