You asked if it was more intrusive. I think it is. While a tax return is required, this is an additional set of information that is not needed to complete taxes. Of course, the transaction should and always would be reported as part of the business financials. The question is this extra information of reporting the name and other details of the individual who paid in cash. That is the disclosure that is prohibited without more.
As you are well aware, there is no requirement for him to show how he spends his money on his tax return, unless he is looking for a tax deduction..so you are mixing apples and oranges.
Huh?
Like it or not...admit it or not...most people who pay more than $10,000 in cash have an alterior motive, they are hiding cash from the tax man, their wife, someone.... and lots of people on this thread are protesting too much.
Many people have ulterior motives for having locks on their car trucks too right? Some use it to hide illegal substances. Does that mean all of us should have our trunks searched? Again, do I think this will affect me or many people, no. Does that make it less of a constitutional violation, no.
You are locking the barn door after the horse is out. This has been the law for years. They have only added merchants to the list of enterprises who already report cash transactions over $10,000. That tells me the criminals have adjusted to the prior system. They used to buy cars to launder the cash. Now they are buying other stuff. I know you know this stuff and I know you know the argument about locks on the trunks of cars is a red herring. And I think you just like to argue....so you really must be a lawyer...:) Although we do not agree on the "reasonableness" of this law, thanks for sharing your opinions. You have given me things to think about.