Posted on 10/26/2014 3:36:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This one came as enough of a surprise to me that it seemed worth sharing. I’ve long been aware that there are limits on cash transactions taking place at banks beyond which the deal has to be reported to the IRS. You run into the same thing at casinos, though I have never won anywhere near enough money to need to worry about reporting it. This is an annoying, but I will agree, necessary function which used to allow law enforcement to track down drug dealers and organized crime entities who were dealing in large, untraceable cash deals. But as this rather startling report from the New York Times shows, the IRS has moved this law enforcement tool into brave new worlds.
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.
The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.
According to their records, Ms. Hinders has still yet to be charged with any crime, but has gone into debt while attempting to get the money returned. And she’s not the only one they turned up. The IRS used this tactic 639 in 2012 alone, with only 20% of those cases ever being prosecuted.
Another interesting item of note show up here. When such funds are seized, law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited. If that doesn’t set off some red flags for you, nothing will.
In case you might still think that this is well intentioned, business as usual at the Internal Revenue Service, this part of the story is the real kicker.
On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by “exceptional circumstances.”
If the people in charge at the IRS honestly thought that this practice was ethical and in the interest of justice, why would they immediately announce that it was being curtailed as soon as the details were dragged out into the sunlight? And if they will now focus only on money that they think is acquired illegally, what sort of money were they focusing on before? Part of the problem may be that the law needs a fresh look in terms of what they are making the banks do. They are required to not only report transactions over the ten grand limit, but any suspicious patterns of transactions below the $10K threshold. The banks, not wanting to run afoul of the law and risk exposure themselves, wind up reporting all sorts of things. More than 700,000 such suspicious reports were filed last year alone.
Seizing all of the money from citizen’s checking or savings accounts and then holding it until they can hire a lawyer and prove they aren’t drug dealers? Pretty sweet work if you can get it.
If you deposit more than $10,000 the government is suspicious and if you deposit less than $10,000 well that's fishy too.
Few care
We have the government we deserve.
only Congress can change the IRS and Congress has failed to restrain this rogue agency.
Snappy uniforms, though.
/johnny
>>This is an annoying, but I will agree, necessary function which used to allow law enforcement to track down drug dealers and organized crime entities who were dealing in large, untraceable cash deals.
It’s for the children. So much for the Constitution.
Whether your local gendarmes get to keep the cash depends on state law. Bad law nevertheless. The incentive is to go for the cash, so watch your state legislatures on laws regarding civil and criminal forfeiture. No one should be facing such forfeitures until at least you have been charged tried in court proven guilty and convicted and even then the incentive is not good.
Why does the IRS do this? Easy answer is because they are the 800 pound gorilla and who can say no to them? Another answer is because each ‘taking’ action like this is a ‘gold star’ in a revenue agent’s record, and there is no downside for doing it, no penalty for being wrong.
Same thing went on for the political scrutiny, Ms Learner just took early retirement. As for her lawyer fees, they will be paid by the government because she was acting in her capacity and job guidelines at the IRS. Besides, most of the problem was the delay for ‘clarifications’, the IRS has to be accurate, right?
The end of banking:
I typically “cash” and deposit my paycheck at the same bank it is drawn from.
Mostly I deposit 90-98% into my checking account as “cash” because I want the funds immediately available, and have no desire to carry around over $30.00 in cash.
When I opened a savings account, I was warned that if I deposited cash into my savings account, in small transactions well under the 10K amount, but over two or threes times a month, I would be subjected to heavy scrutiny.
They specifically mentioned things like cash from garage sales, or sudden changes from any of my previous rates/history of transactions.
I don't think most people understand how much the Feds have intruded into every single citizens lives.
The depth of internal surveillance is breathtaking, given the extent of their abuses of powers for political reasons.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Like health"care", it's all about general probabilities in determining whether or not something is wrong. Reality, reason, and context have been replaced by numerology.
"Too many" transactions are like "high" BP, cholesterol, and BMI numbers... thresholds of harassment hell that expand the government appetite for power and control increases, while real problems somehow slip through the cracks.
Medical drones will immediately react with "care" and concern when a BP reading is elevated even a little past the allowed numbers, but cough up a lung and good luck getting a chest xray.
Now we see that banks are just as caring and concerned. Wonder how attentive they are when a customer has a mess on his hands due to identity theft.
66 comments here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3219545/posts
What rogue agency? They are following laws passed by Congress with support from drug warriors. President GHW Bush, March 1991=>
Asset forfeiture laws allow us to take the ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets and more prosecutors in court.
In the last 5 years alone, the Justice Department shared over half a billion dollars in forfeited assets with State and local law enforcement.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=2764&year=1991&month=3
They do it because they are immune from prosecution or civil suit. Sovereign immunity was one big ass mistake made by the robes once again. See Price v United States.
Our “Brave New World” keeps on a gettin More Braver and More Newer
all of m cash beyond operating expenses is converted into physical silver bulion and stored away from the bank. I dont keep anymore in my accounts than I’m willing to lose. mind you, I don’t make enough money to catch their attention, but I don’t trust them nevertheless. And, i can say that when I retire several decades form now, my dollar will still be worth what it was when I earned it (well, I hope anyway)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.