How quaint this modern America
This enrages me. I am glad someone took their case and I hope the IRS gets their asses handed to them
His best bet is to get one or both of his senators on his side. A call from a senator’s office works miracles. My senator got a federal agency to release a drug shipment I’d received from Switzerland. It was legally seized as Congress had passed a law to stop people form importing cheaper drugs that were available in the US. Didn’t matter. One phone call, I got my Celebrex. (There was such an uproar Congress cancelled the law.)
So if I understand correctly, the IRS took their money because they didn’t exceed the level set by law. Sort of like giving you a speeding ticket for driving a few mph under the limit because you were intentionally trying to not exceed the speed limit. Because you were obviously trying to avoid being ticketed by not exceeding the limit.
This is damned insanity.
The IRS claims that Terry and Sandy violated federal anti-money laundering laws by making regular deposits of cash in amounts less than $10,000. Since banks are required to report deposits larger than $10,000 to the IRS, a firm that consistently makes deposits less than this minimum may draw the attention of the IRS.
I am reading more and more cases like this and it is a total farce. The las says $10,000. This means that if you continually make deposits of $9,999.99 that you may arouse suspicion, but you have done nothing illegal. This points out something else: The article states “...violated federal anti-money laundering laws by making regular deposits of cash in amounts less than $10,000.” I believe that is incorrect. It is completely legal to deposit that amount of money as many times as you want. It’s a free country. The law only states that deposits over that amount must be reported.
The deposits may draw attention, just as creative tax deductions may draw attention, but I’ve never heard of the IRS locking down someone’s assets because they think they may be taking deductions they shouldn’t be taking.
This stinks to high heaven. It’s why my assets are not in bank accounts. They can’t take your silver, gold and real estate without a bit more trouble on their part.
‘Collateral Damage’ in the War on Drugs.
Since the government - through laws like FATCA - is now trying to claim that even human persons categorized as American Citizens are the property of the state, it stands to reason that they would not have any qualms about seizing assets owned by their own property.
Here’s the truth. The leftists hate private enterprise. In their minds, all the means of production should be in the hands of the government. (see communist manifesto)
They can’t seize all businesses, just yet, so they take a big piece at a time and call it something else: “asset forfeiture.”
That’s the American way. Deny what you’re doing. Give it a nice-sounding name. Keep doing what you were already doing.
Civil Asset Forfeiture is primarily a product of the War on Drugs, although racketeering initiatives may also have been a motivation.
When you combine asset forfeiture with an increasingly greedy government at all levels and an increasingly militarized police force... well the picture is clearly not one of increasing liberty and freedom, is it?
If you like your money, you can keep your money, period.
Great piece but this isn't entirely correct. In our system, the state must prove guilt, rather than the accused proving innocence. But this case is important to small business owners everywhere and I hope they prevail.
And that bank is right across the street which makes even more sense for the family.......
I’m sure that many a folks that are against this are supportive of the foundational policies that have led to these abuses. I’d like to send out a big thank you to those that supported the elimination of private property rights via smoking bans on private property and a special shout out to President Richard Nixon, R, that brought us the war on drugs!
Progressivism must destroy private property.