Insert cash, buy Bitcoin.
Posted on 09/29/2021 10:20:00 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Wyoming Republican Sen. Cynthia Lummis tore into Treasury Sec. Janet Yellen on Tuesday for her support of a Biden proposal to require banks to hand over transaction data over $600 on individual bank accounts.
'Banks do not work for the IRS,' Lummis said. 'This is invasive of privacy. Wyoming's people literally will find alternatives to traditional banks just to thwart IRS access to their personal information, not because they're trying to hide anything, but because they are not willing to share everything.'
The senator asked Yellen if she was 'aware how unnecessary this regulatory burden is?'
'Do you distrust the American people so much that you need to know when they bought a couch?' Lummis asked. 'Or a cow?'
'I am astounded by what you're supporting and proposing. I think it's invasive. I think privacy for individuals is being ignored. And I think that treating the American people like they are subjects of the government is unconscionable.'
Yellen told Lummis that she believes the senator is misunderstanding the proposal, as it requires banks to hand over the IRS data on aggregate inflows and outflows of an account for transactions over $600, rather than details on each individual transaction.
Yellen noted that the tax gap is expected to swell to $7 trillion over the next decade.
The IRS would know how much money is in an individual's bank account in a given year, whether the individual earned income on that account and exactly how much was going in an and out.
The deep dive into financial transactions would be funded by allocating an additional $80 billion to the IRS.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Very doubtful that will work. Just like those who keep transactions under $10,000 to avoid letting the feral government know their financial details, you would most likely be charged with “structuring”.
oh, good grief Joe-6! ya just had to go & ruin it for me didn’t cha? LOL
From that link, structuring applies to banks and CTR. It’s when depositing large sums o’money.
If my money is already in the bank and I decide to pay someone with three checks, I don’t see how that can be illegal.
Make sure they cost less than $600!
"Structuring," is covered by 31 US Code § 5324, the full title of which is, "Structuring transactions to evade reporting." Under current law, banks and other financial institutions are required to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) for any transaction (deposit, withdrawal, transfer, etc.) in excess of $10K. If that financial institution has reason to believe that transactions are being structured to not trigger a CTR, the bank is required to file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR), which might trigger an investigation by the FedGov.
There have been cases where a business's average weekly take would be somewhere between $9-10K so they would show a pattern of deposits just under the reporting threshold. SARs were filed, and investigations triggered where the business showed the transactions were completely legit, but the pattern did raise suspicion. If the investigation would have shown that the deposits were deliberately "structured," to avoid triggering a CTR (or series of CTRs) that would be a crime.
If Biden is successful in requiring banks to report $600 accounts/transactions, I think it only reasonable that the structuring laws will be expanded to require SARs for transactions structured to avoid triggering those reports as well.
It’s not every transaction over $600. The original plan was to monitor all bank accounts that had over $600 TOTAL deposited or withdrawn ANNUALLY. Meaning pretty much every checking acct in the U.S.
The latest Dem proposal is $10,000 total activity for any bank acct. annually. This is being presented as the same reporting requirements we have now, i.e. for individual transactions of $10,000 or more. It’s not the same. If you have $850 deposited monthly from Social Security for example, you will be over the $10,000 annual limit and your account will be monitored.
Comments such as dissolve the IRS. And replace the income tax with a national sales tax we’re in order. Did anyone say anything like that? Didn’t think so.
Insert cash, buy Bitcoin.
Been a looooong time since anyone called Janet Yellen ‘a girl’. LOL! Seriously, she’s well past her expiration date and about as mentally fit for her job as Joe Biden is for his. Retreads, the both of them.
YES! He does need to know. If we can afford a new couch we have not been taxed enough.
Yes, the bucket of sheep spit hates American citizens that much.
Remember bammy’s rule that sales or transactions over 600 had to be reported on a 1099? He was ready to hire more irs staff to handle the load. Bam had some common sense, and retracted it. Uncle joe has NO sense in his head, no sense of proportion, no idea of how things work.
Joe, you would get MORE in tax revenue if you left the rates alone, and instead worked on business formation and expansion. But your mind, missing billions of brain connections, can’t understand that.
I want in on the class action lawsuit.
Very perceptive.
Untrue- I just cashed $4000 and $10,000 recently at a NY city bank and a San Francisco bank, resp..
All you need is an ID.
Bring a relative with you to vouch for your ID but you do not really need it.
It also helps to call the bank manager ahead of time and tell them from whence the check came.
ask for payment in $100 and $500 bills.
A private party check? And you had no account at the bank you cashed it at?
More privacy invasion by Uncle Sugar.
I buy hay and tap the ATM for $1200/weekend for a load of hay. I think this would affect my hay farmer more than me since my funds are taxed from the employer.
I pay 43% Cap Gains...and then add property tax, fuel tax, this tax that tax....It's over 50% for me....
just google “cash checks at issuing bank”, experian.com, huntington.com, etc.
That's a certainty.
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.