Posted on 10/04/2008 8:19:37 AM PDT by TazforPrez
IRS undercover operations: Privacy invasion? The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I'm not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it'll save you $1,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.
Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 "trained undercover agents" working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.
Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that: "Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year."
There's another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected "terrorist" activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.
The information that can be shared includes "a taxpayer's identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer's return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return."
That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically expired on January 1, 2008.
What's a little odd is that there's been little to no discussion of the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week: "I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of further deterioration in our economy." He never mentioned the necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.
Did they actually outsmart themselves by placing things in the bill that could easily be open to court challenge?
Could a lawsuit by the ACLU or like entity suspend the actions of this piece of work we "had" to have.
I'm just looking for thoughts on this from a legal standpoint. Thx
The money will be long gone by the time a court peruses the fine points. Besides, riders don’t necessarily corrupt the whole bill. How could they, when Congress jams so many things together at once that have nothing to do with eachother but timing?
No.
I think rather that an “unconstitutional” claim could start from the fact that the Senate, NOT the House, wrote the tax and spend provisions.
ALL spending bills must start in the House.
Actually the bill was rejected on Monday so that it could be larded up. I love it when a plan comes together.
Outrageous. From my Texas voting area, my conservative Republican Senators did not represent me, my liberal Democrat Representative Lloyd Dogget did. I was going to vote straight Republican, but now I will not because I am going to leave blank the Senator (Cornyn) vote. Cornyn’s office refused to tell me the ratio of calls for/against the bailout bill. Welcome to Havana.
Declan, those provisions were certainly not part of the original Paulson proposal, which was mercifully brief and to the point at only 3 pages.
The House created a disgusting pig of a 100 page bill around the Paulson proposal which was shot down in the House, but it took the bloviators in the Senate to create this abomination of 450 pages of pork and special interests.
Granted.But it did start in the House(turned down).But the Senate already had it on their schedule for floor debate(approved), and then resubmitted to the house for consideration.
Not saying that is constitutional,but I’m just a truck driver and not a lawyer,so perhaps your correct.
I suspect such a ploy would be considered entrapment and thrown out. Undercover agents are not supposed to initiate discussion of illegal activities, although they can play along once they're brought up.
They left it open for court review by having it originate in the Senate rather than the House.
That’s the part open to court challenge.
My question is what is the possibility of a lawsuit filed on this particular part of the bill determining the bill unconstitutional?
Could this be a back door way of averting this travesty?
Just a thought that occured to me.Probably way off base.
bump
They added it to the mental health bill
If anybody needt that bill it’s congress and senate.
You nailed it. However, it takes a person with standing to raise the case. In my mind that could be ANY tax paying citizen of the US, but...
The ACLU object to more police-state powers for the IRS?
Hahahahahahahahahahah!
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.