HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » IRS seizes woman's entire...

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:14 PM

IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits less than $10,000 at a time

Law Lets I.R.S. Seize Accounts on Suspicion, No Crime Required



An Iowa woman named Carole Hinders saw her bank balance go from $33,000 to zero thanks to IRS confiscation. Hinders, who owns a small, cash-only Mexican restaurant, has not been charged with any crime and is not suspected of tax fraud. The IRS says they took her money solely because she deposited too little of it at a time, and the agency claims she did so to avoid the required reporting of any bank transaction over $10,000. She says she just thought it was helpful to save the bank paperwork.

Though the $10,000 rule is ostensibly designed to help catch terrorists and drug dealers, it is far more often used on regular citizens who are unlikely to ever see their money returned. "I don't think [the IRS is] really interested in anything," said a lawyer representing another seizure case. "They just want the money."

To keep her restaurant afloat following the confiscation of her savings, Hinders has had to take out a second mortgage and max out her credit cards. "How can this happen?" she asks. "Who takes your money before they prove that you've done anything wrong with it?"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required/ar-BBbbfW3?ocid=mailsignout
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/270692/speedreads-irs-seizes-womans-entire-savings-because-she-deposits-less-than-10000-at-a-time

198 replies, 27711 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 198 replies Author Time Post
Reply IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits less than $10,000 at a time (Original post)
kpete Oct 2014 OP
Kalidurga Oct 2014 #1
joeglow3 Oct 2014 #4
Xithras Oct 2014 #10
ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #13
Post removed Oct 2014 #116
KamaAina Oct 2014 #2
Logical Oct 2014 #3
closeupready Oct 2014 #7
closeupready Oct 2014 #9
yeoman6987 Oct 2014 #60
bluesbassman Oct 2014 #67
kelly1mm Oct 2014 #110
ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #175
RKP5637 Oct 2014 #121
TreasonousBastard Oct 2014 #5
Dawson Leery Oct 2014 #6
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #8
Shadowflash Oct 2014 #11
Solomon Oct 2014 #15
Maedhros Oct 2014 #32
brush Oct 2014 #39
tammywammy Oct 2014 #44
brush Oct 2014 #111
Historic NY Oct 2014 #12
stevenleser Oct 2014 #152
Historic NY Oct 2014 #154
stevenleser Oct 2014 #155
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #14
GeorgeGist Oct 2014 #16
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #17
Throd Oct 2014 #19
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #21
Throd Oct 2014 #23
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #25
shraby Oct 2014 #29
Johonny Oct 2014 #38
True Earthling Oct 2014 #33
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #36
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #144
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #147
ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #176
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #181
ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #196
Orsino Oct 2014 #24
mrdmk Oct 2014 #28
msanthrope Oct 2014 #45
villager Oct 2014 #55
msanthrope Oct 2014 #57
villager Oct 2014 #102
msanthrope Oct 2014 #103
villager Oct 2014 #106
msanthrope Oct 2014 #108
villager Oct 2014 #183
msanthrope Oct 2014 #187
villager Oct 2014 #197
Orsino Oct 2014 #122
msanthrope Oct 2014 #128
Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #109
Logical Oct 2014 #18
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #20
Throd Oct 2014 #22
Logical Oct 2014 #54
jeff47 Oct 2014 #77
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #115
pnwmom Oct 2014 #27
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #30
exboyfil Oct 2014 #34
closeupready Oct 2014 #41
msanthrope Oct 2014 #46
pnwmom Oct 2014 #35
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #37
pnwmom Oct 2014 #40
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #47
pnwmom Oct 2014 #53
FBaggins Oct 2014 #62
pnwmom Oct 2014 #65
noiretextatique Oct 2014 #58
FBaggins Oct 2014 #61
pnwmom Oct 2014 #66
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #69
pnwmom Oct 2014 #73
FBaggins Oct 2014 #75
pnwmom Oct 2014 #76
FBaggins Oct 2014 #79
pnwmom Oct 2014 #81
FBaggins Oct 2014 #83
Scootaloo Oct 2014 #101
FBaggins Oct 2014 #74
tammywammy Oct 2014 #48
pnwmom Oct 2014 #51
msanthrope Oct 2014 #49
pnwmom Oct 2014 #56
msanthrope Oct 2014 #59
jeff47 Oct 2014 #82
pnwmom Oct 2014 #86
jeff47 Oct 2014 #89
pnwmom Oct 2014 #94
jeff47 Oct 2014 #96
pnwmom Oct 2014 #99
jeff47 Oct 2014 #134
pnwmom Oct 2014 #174
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #131
FBaggins Oct 2014 #87
jeff47 Oct 2014 #91
FBaggins Oct 2014 #93
pnwmom Oct 2014 #100
FBaggins Oct 2014 #114
ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #180
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #145
msanthrope Oct 2014 #160
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #188
msanthrope Oct 2014 #190
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #192
msanthrope Oct 2014 #193
FBaggins Oct 2014 #162
progressoid Oct 2014 #31
randome Oct 2014 #124
SoCalDem Oct 2014 #63
AndreaCG Oct 2014 #64
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #72
Beaverhausen Oct 2014 #85
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #98
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #130
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #135
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #137
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #138
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #139
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #142
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #149
jeff47 Oct 2014 #80
fishwax Oct 2014 #136
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2014 #140
Vinca Oct 2014 #26
mikeysnot Oct 2014 #42
woo me with science Oct 2014 #43
L0oniX Oct 2014 #50
jwirr Oct 2014 #52
taught_me_patience Oct 2014 #68
yellowcanine Oct 2014 #71
Savannahmann Oct 2014 #78
jeff47 Oct 2014 #84
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #159
jeff47 Oct 2014 #161
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #165
jeff47 Oct 2014 #166
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #169
jeff47 Oct 2014 #170
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #171
jeff47 Oct 2014 #172
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #173
FBaggins Oct 2014 #167
jeff47 Oct 2014 #168
yellowcanine Oct 2014 #70
jeff47 Oct 2014 #88
yellowcanine Oct 2014 #125
closeupready Oct 2014 #141
laundry_queen Oct 2014 #189
Marrah_G Oct 2014 #184
scarystuffyo Oct 2014 #90
Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #112
Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #117
randome Oct 2014 #123
Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #133
B Calm Oct 2014 #119
liberal_at_heart Oct 2014 #92
Rex Oct 2014 #95
alarimer Oct 2014 #97
FiveGoodMen Oct 2014 #104
HereSince1628 Oct 2014 #107
closeupready Oct 2014 #143
Calista241 Oct 2014 #105
treestar Oct 2014 #113
justice1 Oct 2014 #150
randome Oct 2014 #191
B Calm Oct 2014 #118
RKP5637 Oct 2014 #120
yellowcanine Oct 2014 #126
randome Oct 2014 #127
yellowcanine Oct 2014 #129
questionseverything Oct 2014 #132
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #146
randome Oct 2014 #156
WinkyDink Oct 2014 #148
randome Oct 2014 #157
Scuba Oct 2014 #151
FBaggins Oct 2014 #164
Scuba Oct 2014 #178
FBaggins Oct 2014 #185
Scuba Oct 2014 #186
FBaggins Oct 2014 #194
3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #153
randome Oct 2014 #158
3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #177
Comrade Grumpy Oct 2014 #163
Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #179
Atman Oct 2014 #182
Beaverhausen Oct 2014 #195
PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #198

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:18 PM

1. Sue them at least then they will have to show up in court...

I dunno if she would win or not. But, I think if she brings in barrels full of receipts it might help. It worked on 34th street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #1)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:21 PM

4. She would lose. This is what adds fuel to the tea bagger's legitimacy

 

You cannot make so many deposits just under $10,000, even if they are legal. Things like this show how screwed up our government can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:29 PM

10. There are a few issues that both the left and the teabaggers agree on.

The elimination of civil asset forfeiture is one of them. CAF is simply theft, perpetrated by the government. The government may have the ability to declare it's theft "legal", but it's still theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #4)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:47 PM

13. If this story is presented without too much slant,

then perhaps liberals and Tea Party folks should work together on this one issue. If we have common ground to better our communities, why shouldn't we do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #13)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:18 PM

2. WTF?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:18 PM

3. And we wonder why people do not trust the government! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:25 PM

7. +1. Or at least the IRS.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:28 PM

9. And as I think about it, also banks.

 

Think about it (as I'm sure she has) - had she just not made those deposits at all, they couldn't have seized her money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:51 PM

60. Shouldn't she be in jail too?

 

She basically stole from all of us. Wonder why child credit doesn't raise fast enough. Thank this person and the many others wo do the same illegal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:12 PM

67. How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

She operates a cash only business, and apparently pays taxes on the income. She just made too many deposits under $10k and ran afoul of the Bank Secrecy act which is intended to thwart money laundering. If this woman was paying her correct taxes (which every indication is that she has been doing that), then she wasn't money laundering and your comment makes little sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #60)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 09:04 PM

110. What illegal activity? Did you miss the part where she is not being accused of tax fraud? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yeoman6987 (Reply #60)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:25 PM

175. Imaginary Crime?

What the heck are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:50 AM

121. Yep! Sometimes gov. is totally out of control. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:22 PM

5. Institutional horseshit...

Employees get all sorts of praise and maybe even perks for bringing in cash and tend to lose perspective when it's easier to hammer the little guy than go after real targets.

It can happen anywhere, and collections, public or private, are rife with this. Look at the cops who confiscate cash they find during a traffic stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:22 PM

6. Here is a legitimate victim of the IRS.

Will the tea party come to her defense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:26 PM

8. This sounds like far more of an 'IRS scandal' than the supposed 'scandal'

of IRS agents properly giving politically-named groups extra scrutiny when they apply for tax-free status for which political groups don't qualify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:33 PM

11. Hmm...

...every deposit I've made, over my entire lifetime, has been for less than 10,000.00.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shadowflash (Reply #11)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:50 PM

15. But it wasnt all cash

The rule is about cash deposits of $10,000 or more have to be reported. The flip side of that is if you keep depositing $9000 in cash all the time they get suspicious that you are trying to avoid being reported on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:54 PM

32. It's called "structuring."

 

Deliberately depositing less than the reportable amount to avoid filing a Cash Transaction Report. It shouldn't be a crime unless there is illegal activity behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solomon (Reply #15)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:10 PM

39. I've heard the threshold for cash deposits is even less . . .

than $10,000 — maybe even a little as a $6500 cash deposit is actually reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tammywammy (Reply #44)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 09:57 PM

111. This is for public consumption for sure . . .

but, like I said, as little as $6500 in cash may be reported if there is suspicion that of tax evasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:39 PM

12. So just how much did she deposit????

The only way the IRS gets in the game is if the banks reports it. Thats what got Spitzer making transfers and deposits.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/11/15/irs-backs-down-returns-seized-cash-to-family-businesses/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:10 PM

152. Apparently at least $33K. That is what was in the account when it was seized.

 

If we just guess that she made 11 deposits of $3000, one every other week for 22 weeks, that would do it. Of course, I am sure there was money going in and out as she covered expenses for the business.

I can see not wanting to fill out the paperwork and doing smaller deposits. If the IRS says there is something wrong with doing that, they should put out guidelines to that effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #152)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:37 PM

154. I've taken out 15-20k at a time with no problems...

I have also redeposited large sums. I wonder what relationship she had with the bank. There has to be more infomation we not getting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #154)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:49 PM

155. That is part of it. The guidelines for banks say something along the lines that they have to know

 

who they are doing business with and if anything seems out of the ordinary they have a duty to report. If her bankers didn't know her or what her business was very well, they could have blown the whistle.

If your bankers know you and the business you are in and know it is legitimate and about how much you can be expected to deposit, no one will bat an eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 01:50 PM

14. Arranging your deposits to stay under reporting thresholds is a crime

 

Doesn't matter if it was legally obtained or not- intentionally hide it from the IRS and its a crime. She knew about the $10,000 limit and was intentionally staying underneath.

And while we may not like these laws, if we want to have a highly progressive tax that is actually enforced we must have these reporting limits to make sure that the IRS is aware of cash transactions and we must have laws making it illegal to evade them.

You can't have a progressive income tax without strong, vigorously enforced laws. Part of that must be criminalization of efforts to avoid reporting to the IRS.

If you let one person intentionally strutting deposits to avoid reporting get off because they "were not trying to hide" you set the precedent that everyone doing the same can claim that excuse.

That just is how it is. You favor a progressive tax you have to give the government the power to enforce that and catch cheats. The enforcement side may make many uncomfortable, but it's an essential part of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:03 PM

16. Horseshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #16)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:07 PM

17. What part?

 

The law is clear, breaking up deposits to avoid reporting is a crime.

If you are claiming we can have a strong progressive income tax without strong enforcement mechanisms, I'm all ears about how you would fight evasion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #17)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:12 PM

19. It's a bad law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #19)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:18 PM

21. Got a better plan

 

Without it the job of the IRS catching tax evaders is a lot harder, so far more will get away with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:25 PM

23. How about the IRS not assume I am doing something illegal?

If I make nine $10,000 deposits or ten $9,000 deposits it is the same amount of money. How am I avoiding the same taxes on $90,000?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Throd (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:33 PM

25. It's not avoiding taxes, it is a sign you may be

 

It is avoiding reporting, the reporting is a tool used by the IRS so they have a good idea who is making large cash deposits.

People making large cash deposits are at high risk of evading taxes. Business done all in cash is the hardest to ensure is being taxed properly and the easiest to evade taxes.

So the reporting is a needed and valid tool.

For that tool to work it has to be used. Leaving it legal to simply skirt under the reporting limits leaved a gaping loophole that lets the evaders escape reporting.

If you are paying your taxes the reporting is of zero matter to you, as you are already telling the IRS about all that money just like you are supposed to.

If you are hiding that money, evading the reporting benefits you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:43 PM

29. The bottom line is the IRS should have talked to the woman and

tried to find out why the questionable deposits, and that's what they were..questionable.
If wrong doing was determined, then they could have taken her to court, confiscation should not enter the picture unless and until she is found guilty of a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #29)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:06 PM

38. I think most agree with this

It isn't the fact the IRS flag her as suspicious or investigated her. People don't like that the IRS can seize "steal" your money without first proving you did something wrong. It is hard to see how her activity warranted the penalty assessed to her and certainly the IRS hasn't proven she is guilty of the crimes the law was intended to address. The law doesn't actually require them to prove anything ever. They can just take it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:54 PM

33. "it is a sign you may be"

So "a sign you may be committing a crime" is a crime???.. I call BS. Show me the federal statute. I can see where that may qualify you to be investigated..but to be charged with a crime? BS. In fact the article clearly stated the woman was not charged with any crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to True Earthling (Reply #33)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:04 PM

36. Yes it is- evading reporting is a crime

 

31 U.S. Code § 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited

Current through Pub. L. 113-185. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by an order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, to file a report or to maintain a record required by any order issued under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 5326, or to maintain a record required pursuant to any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 ofPublic Law 91–508, that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.
(b) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Nonfinancial Trades or Businesses.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the report requirements of section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section—
(1) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to fail to file a report required under section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section;
(2) cause or attempt to cause a nonfinancial trade or business to file a report required under section 5331 or any regulation prescribed under such section that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with 1 or more nonfinancial trades or businesses.
(c) International Monetary Instrument Transactions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5316—
(1) fail to file a report required by section 5316, or cause or attempt to cause a person to fail to file such a report;
(2) file or cause or attempt to cause a person to file a report required under section 5316 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of monetary instruments.
(d) Criminal Penalty.—
(1) In general.— Whoever violates this section shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
(2) Enhanced penalty for aggravated cases.— Whoever violates this section while violating another law of the United States or as part of a pattern of any illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period shall be fined twice the amount provided in subsection (b)(3) or (c)(3) (as the case may be) of section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #36)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:22 AM

144. Banks report account totals when Income Taxes are due. What is your point with this woman's

 

deposits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #144)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:27 AM

147. Go look up and read the laws cited in this one

 

One says that any deposit over $10,000 in cash must be reported to the IRS.

She evaded that reporting by breaking her deposits up to be under $10,000.

That is a crime.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:28 PM

176. Driving Is A Sign I May Be DUI

But, if i'm not, i wouldn't arrested at my home later. The very fact i was driving a car is a "sign" of something, but no law is broken.

Your logic escapes me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #176)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:38 PM

181. Your analogy is flawed

 

Structuring deposits to avoid isn't just liek plain driving.

Making regular deposits is just like plain driving. Structuring your deposits to avoid reporting is like making a u-turn when you see a DUI checkpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #181)

Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:24 AM

196. No It's Not

The flaw is in your logic. There is no difference. There is no EVIDENCE she intended to shield the deposits from the IRS. Absolutely none.

You're making a logical leap to that effect.

That's on you.

On Edit: If you think i was offering an analogy, that's also on you. I was pointing on how ridiculous the whole concept that something is a "sign" of something in this case. I was analogizing nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:27 PM

24. Well, there used to be things called warrants. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #24)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:42 PM

28. The other word is investigation

There was no investigation, no warrant, no work what-so-ever.

Just a stupid move and saying job well done...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #24)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:22 PM

45. Don't need a warrant in this case. To clarify--you don't need a warrant to

 

get her banking records. You do need a warrant, which the gov't obtained---for seizure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:35 PM

55. In fewer and fewer cases, actually. Glad that has your blessings.

 

The 4th Amendment, and all that went with it, was so "last century," anyway...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #55)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:42 PM

57. The 4th amendment has little to do with a business transaction

 

insured by the FDIC.

Although, I am sure that the 1 percent would agree that their banking is nobody else's business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #57)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:50 PM

102. You should hear former Federal prosecutors talk about abuses of this law....

 

...and how the camel's nose-in-the-tent was the "war on drugs."

Asset forfeiture, like rolled back 4th Amendment "protections," are part and parcel of the intrusiveness of the all-pervasive state.

Which is actually done at the behest of the 1%.

Might be good to "just say no" to some of their ideas, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #102)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:58 PM

103. Yeah...except you've got the law wrong. Bank records are obtained without warrant

 

under Smith v Maryland and its progeny. As for asset seizure, note that a warrant was issued in this case.

I don't disagree with you that the 4th amendment needs protecting. Knowledge of the law doesn't mean I agree with it. It just means I know what I am talking about. Here you have a woman who admits she structured her deposits to avoid paperwork.....and that is a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #103)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:23 PM

106. Again, having heard a former Federal prosecutor talk about abuses of this law...

 

...in a colleague's law school classroom, I have a different view on its deployment vs. the original "spirit" of it.

And this incident would entirely violate that spirit. We don't even know how cash flow comes in to her restaurant. She's being punished, assets seized, for what could be a facet of how money comes in to her establishment.

But the asset forfeiture -- again, even according to former Federal prosecutors who'd used the law to actually catch drug smugglers, after it was passed -- has become, ultimately, too much to resist. And skewed everything.

Even our normal sense of what constitutes civil liberty violations, as citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #106)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:59 PM

108. Which former federal prosecutor? This has nothing to do with her cash flow...

 

as another lawyer on this thread pointed out how she made 12000 dollars in one day it woukd have been perfectly legal for her to deposit that. But had she structured it, as she said she did.... in order to avoid the paperwork.... that is illegal.

Ad a US citizen she always has the option of not using a bank at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #108)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 04:23 PM

183. For fuck's sake -- the one I heard in my friend's law school class!

 

Jesus H. Christ.

have a drink.

Look over your posts down thread where you agree it was an unjust seizure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #183)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 08:52 PM

187. This person has a name, right? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #187)

Fri Oct 31, 2014, 02:18 AM

197. What's your name, msanthrope?

 

He was a guest speaker in my friend's law class, two years ago.

You are free to take that stick out of your rear end, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #45)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:02 AM

122. Therein lies a hit of a problem. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orsino (Reply #122)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:42 AM

128. Agreed...most Americans do not realize that there is very little privacy

 

in our commercial transactions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 08:47 PM

109. Here's a better plan

from the link:
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.”


Simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:12 PM

18. Intent matters! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #18)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:16 PM

20. Her intent was to avoid reporting nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:18 PM

22. I would do the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:34 PM

54. Nope! Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Logical (Reply #54)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:44 PM

77. Yep! Read the story.

Her intent was to "avoid paperwork". AKA avoid reporting. Avoiding reporting is its own crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #20)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:31 AM

115. Prove it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:39 PM

27. She didn't do that. She operated a small business that produced cash deposits every day.

Also, many business owners are insured for cash amounts up to $10K. Thus, they keep cash on hand below that amount. It's to comply with their insurance requirements, not to deceive the IRS.

This is about a money grab by Federal agencies that go after innocent business owners because the agencies get a cut out of any proceeds they can grab. That is how the forfeiture law works,and it was intended to go after drug sellers and money launderers, not ordinary business owners.

The IRS was only prosecuting 1 out of 5 of the people whose money they took. Now they have announced they'll no longer be following this process -- proving they were wrong all along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #27)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:45 PM

30. Read the story

 

She admits she structured her deposits to be under 10k so the bank wouldn't have to do paperwork.

She says she did so thinking it was doing them a favor. Can't say if thag is true or not, but I am sure everyone caught doing this has a similar excuse and didn't mean to evade reporting.

If a landlord didn't get a building permit to put an addition on an apartment building, but built everything to code, would you be ok with them skipping permits and inspection to "save everybody the paperwork"? Same. Principle, the building pernit and IRS reports both exist for the greater good of society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #30)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:03 PM

34. Why you should never talk to the authorities

without first talking to a lawyer. Proving motivation on an all cash business would have been virtually impossible (one example was motivation to hold cash until reaching the insurance threshold as mentioned by one poster).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #34)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:12 PM

41. Yeah, pretty much. The IRS wins this battle, but loses the war.

 

Also fuels my concerns about lack of privacy domestically in communications and such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #34)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:23 PM

46. Absolutely. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #30)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:04 PM

35. She didn't say she was doing it to avoid the IRS, and they have no proof that she did.

And they don't for 4/5ths of the other people whose money they tried to steal.

Remember innocent till proven guilty? That is still supposed to be the operative principle in our justice system. You seem to have forgotten about that.

Your analogy fails because she was NOT required by law to make deposits over $10K. The law merely required her not to make lower deposits IN ORDER TO evade reporting requirements. And the IRS cannot prove that's what she was trying to do. She thought she was saving the bank some effort, not thwarting the IRS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:06 PM

37. She said she was doing it to evade the paperwork

 

That is all it takes to meet the elements of the crime as the statute is written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #37)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:11 PM

40. What paperwork? How did she even know the paperwork was an IRS issue, and not some

internal bank paperwork? She got the advice from her mother, not some tax expert.

And she's just some small business owner trying to carry on the family business, not some legal whiz.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:24 PM

47. She was acting stupidly

 

But ignorance of a speed limit won't get you excused from a ticket, ignorance of the need for a building permit doesn't excuse doing work without one, ignorance of the requirement to use a dealer to sell a gun across state lines doesn't make doing so not a crime, ignorance of the illegality of making threats against the President without intent to carry them out will still get you in trouble.

Like any of the above, pleading ignorance might be a strategy in court, but it doesn't change that the crime was committed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #47)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:33 PM

53. It's not a crime because it's NOT illegal to make deposits under $10K.

It's only illegal to do that with the deliberate intention of structuring your deposits to avoid the IRS.

So her ignorance of the law and her lack of intention to subvert it are what make her innocent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #53)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:00 PM

62. Close... but not quite

It isn't "to avoid the IRS"... it's "to avoid the reporting requirement"... which is just what she says she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #62)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:02 PM

65. No, she did not say she did it "to avoid the reporting requirement." She said she was

trying to save the bank some paperwork -- which could have even been internal bank paperwork. Where does she say anything about trying to avoid reporting to the IRS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #47)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:42 PM

58. it is NOT illegal to make deposits under $10,000.00

please stop insinuating that it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to noiretextatique (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:59 PM

61. It is illegal to do what she reportedly did

She kept her deposis under 10k to avoid the reporting reqiremets. That explicitly violates the law. We can disagree with the law, but we can't pretend that it doesn't exist.

The interesting thing there is that she claimed that she claimed that she was doing it to make things easier on the bank... when it actually makes it harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:03 PM

66. No, she didn't say that. The paperwork wasn't necessarily IRS paperwork. You're assuming

that's what she was doing, but the law is still "innocent till proven guilty" -- and you can't prove she understood what paperwork the bank could avoid if her deposits were under $10K.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:13 PM

69. It doesn't matter how well she understood

 

She knew exceeding $10,000 per deposit caused additional paperwork.

She intentionally structured her deposits to avoid going over $10,000.

This violated the law, as I posted above. It says not one thing about how well you understand it. It says if you structure your deposits in a way the avoids reporting you are breaking the law. She did just that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #69)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:18 PM

73. She didn't know it was IRS-related paperwork. Not every bit of paperwork a bank does

is on a form for the IRS. It could have been some other paperwork, for all she knew.

And it's only illegal if your intention is to thwart the IRS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #73)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:41 PM

75. You keep saying that

And it's only illegal if your intention is to thwart the IRS.

Repeating it doesn't make it true. The only place that "intention" enters the statute is whether or not you intended to avoid the required paperwork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #75)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:43 PM

76. She didn't INTEND to thwart THAT specific paperwork.

There is no law saying that it's wrong to avoid paperwork in general -- only that IRS form, which she didn't know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #76)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:53 PM

79. Again... it isn't an IRS form

She obviously knew that a form was required for amounts over $10k and acted to avoid that form. Claiming that she may have been ignorant of that law's requirements has never been an excuse (though I rather doubt that she was).

There is no law saying that it's wrong to avoid paperwork in general

Right... just the paperwork that she tried to avoid.

which she didn't know about.

Not provable... and no relevant even if it could be proven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #79)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:01 PM

81. No, she didn't have to know it was a government form of any kind.

It could have been internal bank paperwork for all she knew.

Better reread the Constitution. She's not required to prove her INNOCENCE. They're required to prove her guilt. And they can't prove that she tried to avoid reporting anything to the government. All she's saying is, based on her mother's advice, she was trying to save the bank some paperwork -- which could have been an internal bank matter. Not every item of paperwork is a government form. The government can't prove what her intent was, because the government isn't a mind reader. And the intent to structure cash deposits to avoid the reporting requirement -- which she didn't have -- is critical to this law.

And the IRS is admitting they've been crossing the line with these cases and they're stopping the practice, because only 1 out of 5 of these forfeitures was even resulting in criminal charges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #81)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:08 PM

83. Sorry... nope

That entire theory rests on the assumption that she had to know that the government requires the reporting i order for it to be illegal...

... that isn't the case. Nor do I find the spin that she might have thought that it was an internal bank thing credible (again - not that it matters).

And the IRS is admitting they've been crossing the line with these cases and they're stopping the practice,

They didn't admit that they "crossed the line". They made clear that the reports that nothing illegal was done were incorrect, and that the new policy does not impact prior actions. What they did was make a political decision that the current policy made them look bad.

That sounds like the right thing to do.

But it doesn't change the fact that she broke the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #69)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:26 PM

101. And so now her savings are confiscated and the bank owns her house twice over

 

Justice has prevailed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:39 PM

74. It isn't IRS paperwork. It's FinCEN (a different part of Treasury)

And yes... she did say that (or so the report says)

and you can't prove she understood what paperwork the bank could avoid if her deposits were under $10K.

I don't need to. I just need to point out that she knew that some paperwork was required above that amount... and intentionally structued her transactions to avoid it.

I've filled out hundreds of those forms. She would have been well aware of when it was required after the first one was filled out.

The interesting thing is that if she has a business that deals in cash and regularly needs to deposit that much... it isn't a big deal for the bank to get her an exception. She could easily have found that the limite would be higher for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:24 PM

48. The paperwork is IRS Form 8300.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #48)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:30 PM

51. The question isn't whether you knew that, it's whether SHE knew that. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:25 PM

49. When you deposit over 10k, you are required to fill out the reporting info to the IRS.

 

Structuring, like what Eliot Spitzer did, is deliberately making deposits or withdrawals in an attempt to avoid this process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #49)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:37 PM

56. Yes, YOU know that and you are right. But there is no evidence SHE understood what paperwork

the bank could avoid if she made her usual small daily deposits. All she knew was her mother said it would save the bank some paperwork. It could have even been internal bank paperwork for all she knew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:49 PM

59. That could be correct, and I think this is a ridiculous seizure. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #56)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:07 PM

82. Ignorance of the law is not a shield against the law.

She knew there was extra steps on deposits over $10k, and she deliberately avoided them. The law still applies whether or not she knew those extra steps were from the law, or from her bank.

Just like "I thought the speed limit was 55" will not get you out of a ticket. You didn't intend to speed, but you did.

Now, if your theory is true, she should be very pissed at her bank for not warning her. They are extremely familiar with the reporting requirements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #82)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:11 PM

86. It is when the law requires INTENT, as this law does.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K unless the intent is to structure the deposits to thwart the IRS.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K to reduce a bank's OWN internal paperwork, which in her mind this could have been. There is no proof that she deliberately structured her small deposits to avoid any reporting requirement to the government.

On top of everything else, she runs a small business and her normal deposits wouldn't be in excess of $10K anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #86)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:18 PM

89. And her INTENT was to avoid the reporting requirements.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K unless the intent is to structure the deposits to thwart the IRS.

And that was her intent.

It isn't illegal to keep deposits under $10K to reduce a bank's OWN internal paperwork, which in her mind this could have been.

Or she could have done it because Ba'al the Soul-Eater would get her for depositing too much cash in one transaction....actually, that might have made it legal.

Anyway, she knew there was additional paperwork. The paperwork has "US TREASURY" all over it. It's really, really obvious it's not a form from her bank. To insist she couldn't possibly have known it was a government form is silly.

There is no proof that she deliberately structured her small deposits to avoid any reporting requirement to the government.

Except for her admitting it. Moral: Don't talk to the police without talking to a lawyer first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #89)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:26 PM

94. No, it wasn't. Banks have LOTS of paperwork having nothing to do with reporting requirements.

She didn't know what paperwork her mother was talking about, just that the bank would have less paperwork if the deposits were smaller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #94)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:31 PM

96. The bank's paperwork doesn't have "US TREASURY" on them.

That's kinda a big hint that it's not the bank's paperwork. She also could have asked her banker "What's that form?" Or "Do I save you guys some work if I make smaller deposits?"

Let's play another hypothetical: You are actually laundering money, and attempting to disguise it via your cash-only business. What are you going to claim when you get caught structuring your deposits to avoid the reporting requirements? "I knew exactly what I was doing" or "I didn't know it was GOVERNMENT paperwork!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #96)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:17 PM

99. Who says the bank gave her a government form? Was that part of the evidence?

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Was there a trial? Did they find her guilty? Or did they just grab her money and try to make her prove she was innocent?

I have made cash deposits to our bank upon occasion and the bank never gave me a government form to fill out. Why would she have expected one?

Funny that the IRS is now formally giving up the practice that they say was perfectly okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #99)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:20 AM

134. The main evidence is that she admitted to avoiding "the paperwork".

Was there a trial? Did they find her guilty?

Civil forfeiture law. So no trial, but also no possible jail time. The government had to present their case to a judge to get a court order.

I have made cash deposits to our bank upon occasion and the bank never gave me a government form to fill out. Why would she have expected one?

Well, she said she did expect one, and structured her deposits to avoid it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #134)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:22 PM

174. "Well, she said she did expect one, and structured her deposits to avoid it."

If she said such a thing, quote please. All I read was that her mother said it would save the bank some paperwork. You are putting words into her mouth.

And you failed to address the fact that the civil forfeiture law was NOT designed for these circumstances, is no doubt unconstitutional under these circumstances, and that's why the IRS is stopping the practice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #96)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:59 AM

131. "The bank's paperwork doesn't have 'US TREASURY' on them."

When my father made his large cash deposits the form was filed electronically by the teller. He never saw the paperwork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #82)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:13 PM

87. The bank isn't supposed to warn her

The reg says that if they suspect her of structuring the transactions to avoid the reporting, they have to fill the form out after she's gone (alone with a SAR).

Where she should be ticked at them (assuming she runs a legit business... and assuming that they didn't offer to help her) is that they could have put her in for an exception. Businesses that regularly deal with more than that much cash (grocery stores, etc) can get much higher limits. They just go through a process to identify what their normal cash business is, and the limit gets set a little above the top end of that range.

Of course... we don't know those facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:21 PM

91. Yeah, I'm not meaning a formal warning

More like letting her know she isn't saving them any work. Assuming, of course, that she told them she was trying to save them extra paperwork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #91)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:24 PM

93. Of course... her spin isn't particularly plausible

Most people with cash businesses know all about the requirements... and most of them find out because they're standing there as it's being filled out and they're told that the government requires it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:19 PM

100. The IRS has acknowledged they shouldn't have been doing this and so they're stopping the practice.

I can't believe anyone here would defend this.

Innocent till proven guilty is still supposed to be the law -- not the government grabbing people's assets just in case there was something illegal involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #100)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:43 AM

114. You continue to assume that repetition adds credibility

It doesn't.

The IRS has acknowledged they shouldn't have been doing this

Nope. If they had acknowledged that... they would have given back what they had taken so far.

Innocent till proven guilty is still supposed to be the law

And it is.

not the government grabbing people's assets just in case there was something illegal involved.

That's the same error that the OP makes. It claims that her mistake was not depositing enough and that the funds were taken even though she hadn't done anything illegal. Neither statement is true. We don't know whether there was an underlying crime that caused her to structure her transactions the way she did, but we know that the structuring itself was illegal (and had nothing whatsoever to do with "not depositing enough".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #114)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:33 PM

180. Apparently So Do You

You continue to miss the point of the argument and make the same statement over and over.

How is what you're doing different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #49)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:24 AM

145. Really? Because I recently deposited a bit more than that (life insurance $$), and no bank official

 

said word one to me about any "reporting info to the IRS." And these are bank employees who know me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #145)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:01 PM

160. They will report to the IRS/Treasury. Call 'em and ask. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #160)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:06 PM

188. Good for them. Then why, in the OP's story, was such bank reporting not sufficient?

 

Last edited Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:34 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #188)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:06 AM

190. Because the depositor was deliberately avoiding the reporting by structuring

 

her deposits at an amount below 10k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #190)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:35 AM

192. Where was this proven?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #192)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 09:39 AM

193. She said she did it. This is why, when you get a notice from the IRS,

 

you don't talk to them. You talk to a lawyer first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #145)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:22 PM

162. It has to be cash to be reportable in this case

Checks and electronic transactions can be traced even years later if they need to audit your books... cash is different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:46 PM

31. I've actually seen her restaurant.

It's a small establishment in a small town. I doubt she's rolling in cash.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #31)


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:00 PM

63. Many self employed people who work for cash have similar problems

They can live off the cash, and as long as their expenses for their business do not set off alarms, they will be fine.

You can buy money orders for cash almost anywhere..and use them to pay your monthly bills.

There is more to this story..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:00 PM

64. So any small business

That makes less than 10,000 a day, and deposits it at the end of every day, is breaking the law? That is a batshit crazy law. I'm glad to see the IRS is ending this, but its victims need to be reimbursed with substantial interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndreaCG (Reply #64)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:17 PM

72. No, that isn't what the law says at all

 

What it says is that if you intentionally structure your deposits to avoid reporting it is a crime.

If you take in 8k today and deposit 8k, and take in 5k tomorrow and deposit 5k you are fine.

But if you take in 14k today and depoait 9k, then take in 4k tomorrow and deposit 9k, rolling that 5k over a day to avoid going over $10,000 you violated the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #72)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:11 PM

85. and how do they know how much she made in a day?

I doubt she make over 10K every day...or any day for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beaverhausen (Reply #85)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 06:16 PM

98. Odds are she said something to the teller

 

Like "I broke this down to 2 deposits to save you the paperwork".

And if she did, the bank is then legally bound to report that statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #98)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:57 AM

130. And as soon as it can be discerned that her deposits are not part of an actual crime

she should be allowed to go on her merry way with a smile and a "Have a nice day."

This is a law used to combat terrorism, drug cartels and tax cheats. If she is none of those she should be left in peace with her oney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #130)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:23 AM

135. Put her through an intensive audit back several years

 

If nothing shows up, return it.

If tax evasion is found or she can't produce a solid accounting of every penny, throw every penalty and fine possible her way. Where there is smoke...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #135)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:02 AM

137. The Tea Party thanks you for their support. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #137)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:08 AM

138. What are you smoking?

 

The teabaggers are the most anti-IRS, anti tax bunch out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #138)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:11 AM

139. Yes.

And you're playing up to their every stereotype of the power mad, guilty-until-proven innocent, crush the common people, overbearing agenda-driven bureaucracy.

If anybody wanted to destroy the IRS they would use your posts as evidence of why it should be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #139)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:19 AM

142. Nothing I have said is untrue

 

She engaged in the crime of structuring her deposits to avoid reporting.

That is not in dispute.

Taking steps to evade reporting should be a huge red flag of possible tax evasion, and should result in a serious audit.

Can you disagree with that?

Tax evaders should be punished as harshly as possible, as they are stealing from society.

Can you disagree with that?

What exactly do you not like about what I said? Or is it just that you know it's true and don't want it said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #142)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:33 AM

149. She's running a cash business.

Either she is allowed to do that or she isn't.

Assuming she is (you see rather dogmatic about right and wrong, so this is a pretty big assumption on my part) then you're asking her to produce records that may show her receipts, deposits and expenses.

Many small business owners don't keep those sorts of records but ASSUMING she did: How does she prove the validity of her records? Remember, it's a cash-only business.

Short answer: She can't.

So you'll just keep her money.

You're assuming she's guilty.

So now her options -- and the options of every other small business owner who is paying attention -- is to either undergo burdensome record keeping that still leaves the matter to be decided by an agency that has more incentive to crush her than protect her or engage in yet more financial structuring and underground economics to stay off the government's radar or simply dispense with going into business and leave it all to the mega-corps to deal with.

And while you're at it don't forget all those people who live on cash tips (Hint -- I'll guarantee they under-report).

How many working class people are you willing to destroy?

The fact that you're so eager to destroy this woman just validates the TP's every argument. You claim she's stealing from society but odds are a growing number of people -- a.k.a. SOCIETY -- won't be sharing your view when they head to the polls this year and in subsequent years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AndreaCG (Reply #64)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:58 PM

80. No. Perhaps an example will help.

Your business made $12,000 this week in cash. You go to the bank to deposit it.

If you make one $12,000 deposit, you have to fill out an additional form. And it's completely legal.

If you make two $6,000 deposits so that you do not fill out that form, then you have broken the law.

If you make one $6,000 deposit to your day-to-day checking account, and one $6,000 deposit to your long-term savings account, that is also legal. Because the two deposits were not to avoid filling out that form.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #14)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:36 AM

136. yes it's illegal, but it's not about enforcing a progressive tax system. It's about the drug war.

And the war on organized crime and the war on terror. It is an anti-money laundering mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #136)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:15 AM

140. this. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 02:34 PM

26. I'm self-employed and I've never had more than $10,000 to deposit at once.

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:14 PM

42. Problem was she deposited in a US bank

if it was a Swiss account all would be fine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:15 PM

43. We are ruled by thieves and criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:28 PM

50. This happens with bankers all the time.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 03:30 PM

52. Interesting. Arnolds Park Iowa where all my Hinders cousins live. Do not know her but she could

have married into the family. Hope she gets her money back. None of us ever had much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:13 PM

68. She's running an all cash biz and making sub 10k deposits to avoid "paperwork"

 

I almost guarantee that she's doing something shady. They should confiscate the money and do an audit. If her biz is legit, then she'll have the receipts to show her sales and expenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #68)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:16 PM

71. "I almost guarantee that she's doing something shady." Wow.

You would probably fit right in at the IRS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to taught_me_patience (Reply #68)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:46 PM

78. Odd, I thought fines and penalties were assessed after an audit.

 

Not before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #78)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:09 PM

84. This penalty was for avoiding the reporting requirements.

The poster you responded to is talking about additional crimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #84)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:59 PM

159. Penalties can only be assessed upon conviction after Due Process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #159)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:08 PM

161. Not everything that is illegal is a crime.

For example, speeding. It's not actually a crime in most states. Yet you still get a ticket that you have to pay, and you will not be tried by a jury. Instead, your due process is handled via a judge or similar person. You are not convicted, because you did not commit a crime. You committed a civil offense. You can be fined, but you can not be sent to prison.

Avoiding these reporting requirements is also not a crime, but a civil offense. To actually take the money, the government presents its case to a judge to get a court order to allow them to take the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #161)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:54 PM

165. "You can be fined, but you can not be sent to prison."

But they cannot assess the fine until AFTER due process has been seen through to its conclusion.


Avoiding these reporting requirements is also not a crime, but a civil offense.

You're seriously trying to play this off as nothing more than a $33,000 speeding ticket?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #165)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:01 PM

166. And that has happened.

But they cannot assess the fine until AFTER due process has been seen through to its conclusion.

And that happened. Due process is, as with a speeding ticket, before a judge. Then the government seized the account.

You're seriously trying to play this off as nothing more than a $33,000 speeding ticket?

Speeding tickets are a civil offense most people are familiar with. Thus it's an accessible example.

If you'd prefer something with a high financial cost, it's also identical to your city/county/state seizing your home for failing to pay property taxes. Again, there is due process before a judge. The judge issues a court order, and the city/county/state gets to seize the house.

However, very few people have experienced failing to pay property taxes, due to either not owning a house, or mortgage companies lumping the taxes in with mortgage payments. So it's not as accessible an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #166)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:40 PM

169. "Due process is, as with a speeding ticket, before a judge."

How about substantive due process? Was she present to face her accusers? Did she get to examine the evidence? Question those testifying against her? Was she entitled to opposing council?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #169)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:44 PM

170. She's entitled to it.

Whether or not she did it in this situation I can not say, since the article does not say.

Though I doubt it would help in this case - she admitted to structuring in order to avoid reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #170)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:46 PM

171. "Whether or not she did it in this situation I can not say, since the article does not say."

Yet you cheer for the kleptocrats because TEA PARTY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #171)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:49 PM

172. No, I'm actually paying attention to what all these people are asking to do next

Which is deregulate the banks.

Golly, it's almost like they're trying to use an inflammatory story about babies tossed from incub.....er.....asset forfeiture to build public support for what they want to do!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #172)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:52 PM

173. So your solution is to keep abusing innocent middle class people as sacrificial lambs

to keep wholly unrelated laws in place to supposedly catch banksters who aren't even being prosecuted under the laws that DO apply to them.

Sneaky. I'll bet those banksters will never see you coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #161)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:25 PM

167. Sure... but why is that relevant. This IS a crime

Structuring transactions to avoid reporting requiremets is a federal crime punishable by a stiff fine and up to five years in prison.

If it turns out that you did it to cover an underlying offense, then the fine and prison time are doubled.

Many states have their own additional criminal penalties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #167)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 02:37 PM

168. It's both. They picked the civil route.

Either is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 04:13 PM

70. I don't understand why it is a crime at all.

I understand the part about money laundering by criminals. However, if money is honestly earned, why should it be a crime to deposit it in amounts of just under $10,000, whatever the intent is? It is impossible to "cover up" legal activity. This is the kind of thing which gives the IRS a bad name. They ought to exercise some professional judgment in these cases. If there is no evidence of illegal activity beyond the deposit amounts, they should just drop it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #70)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:14 PM

88. It isn't a crime to deposit it.

It's a crime to deposit it in such a way that you don't report the cash deposit to the feds.

You have $12,000 in cash from your business. You go to the bank to deposit it.

Make one $12,000 deposit, and you have to fill out a form. And you haven't broken any laws.
Make one $6,000 deposit into your day-to-day expenses checking account, and one $6,000 deposit into your long-term savings account. And you haven't broken any laws. You're making two deposits for two different purposes, not to avoid the form.
Make two $6,000 deposits so that you don't have to fill out the form, and you've broken this law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #88)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:17 AM

125. I understand that. I still think it is a bad law.

If you are reporting the cash to the IRS on a quarterly basis or whatever the IRS requires and the numbers match with the cash deposits made, I really don't see why it should matter. There are many legitimate reasons to keep cash deposits under $10.000, particularly for small businesses. Someone pointed out that insurance companies often only cover up to $10,000, so it makes sense for a small business to make a deposit as soon as the amount approaches $10,000, even if that means making several trips to the bank on the same day. The IRS could see that as avoiding the reporting requirement but it is not. It is legal to deal in cash. The IRS is making criminals out of innocent people for the purpose of making it easier to catch crooks. I am sorry but that is unacceptable in a free society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #125)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:18 AM

141. It IS a bad law. It's bureaucracy out-of-control.

 

It's like a fiscal Vatican - you may not like the rules, no matter how small and petty and arbitrary they seem (or even ARE), but you must obey every law to the letter, OR ELSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #125)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 12:47 AM

189. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #88)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 04:23 PM

184. Actually I believe if you deposit in two accounts you still have to fill out the form

It's been a while since I worked as a teller, but I'm pretty splitting it into two accounts would not negate the form. Also, if there was regular deposits being made of just under the 10k then the bank is supposed to report it.

Now what I find really fucked up is the ability of the government to take her money without any charges or an investigation,. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:21 PM

90. IRS=MAFIA

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scarystuffyo (Reply #90)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:17 AM

112. Shouldn't you be posting on a Tea Party forum

 

The IRS does a tough job that is 100% needed and nessecary. Progressive society cannot exist with a progressive tax code that is aggressively enforced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #112)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:35 AM

117. Bullshit

The IRS is a bloated agency that does not need to do the job they do. 90% of the US tax code is unnecessary and outdated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iamthetruth (Reply #117)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:07 AM

123. Until you change that, the law is the law.

 

Or should we cheer on 'tax regulation nullification' for any government employee who doesn't want to do his/her job?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #123)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:09 AM

133. Blind obedience sucks.

Blind obedience to misapplied laws from corrupt officials sucks even more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #112)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:39 AM

119. +1 Couldn't agree more!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:23 PM

92. Big banks get to do whatever they hell they want to do. A small business owner gets her money

stolen. That's America for you. The land of the not free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:29 PM

95. If only the IRS would go after criminal billionaires the way it goes after small business owners.

 

I feel sorry for her, small businesses are punished for being successful. Meanwhile, conglomerates that hurt the local economy (Wal-Mart) are never touched by the IRS and get huge tax breaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:40 PM

97. The IRS shouldn't have stolen her money.

They should NEVER be allowed to do that, until conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #97)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:13 PM

104. So very agreed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #97)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:27 PM

107. I don't know why they could not have just frozen the account

until an audit was conducted and if needed a resolution to dealing with payments and penalties for unreported earnings was developed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #97)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:20 AM

143. Completely agree. Except perhaps if they have a judicial warrant.

 

A judge should have to issue a warrant for seizure after reviewing allegations of criminal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Oct 27, 2014, 07:15 PM

105. Civil asset forfeiture laws should, at a minimum, only apply to people actually convicted of a crime

And any forfeiture should be directly related to the cash proceeds of the crime you're convicted of. None of this "he ran a stop sign" bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:34 AM

113. this is being reported in a biased way

in order to demonize the government, which is getting tiresome.

a real discussion of what laws and procedures are at play would probably show that this is not what she claims it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #113)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:42 AM

150. I looked her up, and the government did in fact, file a lawsuit against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justice1 (Reply #150)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 08:28 AM

191. I knew there was something else to the story. Thanks for looking that up.

 

Can you post a link that would end this thread?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:36 AM

118. The War on Drugs continues to ruin people.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 07:48 AM

120. R, D, I and Teabaggers have more in common than many realize when it comes to this shit! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:32 AM

126. This law may have made sense back in the day before computers, etc.

Today, not so much. There is an electronic record readily accessible to any law enforcement agency with a warrant. Why is it necessary to file a report for any cash transaction over $10,000? Dealing in cash is legal in ANY amount. Let's not make criminals out of people based on how they deposit their cash. The IRS is assuming criminal intent. Some people maybe just don't want the hassle of filling out another form. That is not criminal intent. In fact, one could argue that this is unacceptable even for someone who is hiding a crime because the 5th amendment says one cannot be required to incriminate themselves. Get a warrant if you have probable cause. If you don't have probable cause, the Constitution says you have to leave the person alone. At least, that is how it is supposed to work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yellowcanine (Reply #126)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:42 AM

127. Suspicions arise for more than money laundering. Maybe she was trying to avoid paying taxes.

 

The seizure shouldn't have occurred but it sounds to me like she just wanted to 'launder' the money to herself.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #127)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:50 AM

129. Suspicion is not probable cause. Is she living way beyond her apparent means?

Does she have a business generating way more income than can be easily explained comparing to similar enterprises? Is she paying cash for fancy cars and houses? Any of these and a judge may say you have probable cause. If not, leave her alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #127)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:00 AM

132. if she was trying to avoid paying taxes why

would she deposit the cash?

theoretically there was no record of the cash before she deposited it

this is a case of small business being targeted while the billionaires escape notice

probably because the small person does not have the resources to fight

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #127)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:26 AM

146. Then why include a bank at all? It isn't like she'd miss out on any meaningful interest.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #146)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:55 PM

156. Because her mattresses were full? I don't know.

 

Like I said, the seizure should not have occurred but I can understand why the careful under-the-limit deposits would draw scrutiny.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 11:30 AM

148. IDGI! People pay Fed. Income Taxes ONCE A YEAR, not with every bank deposit! So HOW can it be

 

claimed, BEFORE APRIL 15, 2015, that she was AVOIDING PAYING TAXES?

Somethin' ain't right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #148)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:57 PM

157. Sales taxes? FICA taxes?

 


[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:06 PM

151. Remind me please why Obama didn't clean house when he took office?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #151)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:35 PM

164. The Bank Secrecy Act was passed in 1970

We had solid control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House.

IOW... the law she violated was no right-wing abuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #164)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:31 PM

178. No, but the violation was designed to make the IRS look abusive, a right-wing strategy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #178)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 04:26 PM

185. No it wasn't

The violation was designed to keep corporations and other businesses from hiding their income from the government and avoiding taxes... or from hiding illegal sources of income.

Neither is a right-wing strategy.

Now... The expanded ability of the IRS to seize assets (rather than just the fact that structuring transactions is illegal)... that can sure make them look abusive. But that's another conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #185)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:14 PM

186. Please explain how seizing this woman's assets "was designed to keep corporations ....

 

... and other businesses from hiding their income from the government and avoiding taxes".

That's the violation in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #186)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:29 AM

194. Ah... then perhaps we're talking past one another

I was talking about the "violation" of law involved in her trying to avoid the reporting requirements.

I agree that the more recent confiscation laws go way too far (though I don't express an opinion re: how/why they were "designed"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:11 PM

153. Outrageous! What happened to the constitutional requirement of Due Process?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3rdwaydem (Reply #153)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 12:58 PM

158. The IRS went to a judge and obtained a warrant.

 

Doesn't that sound like due process?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #158)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:31 PM

177. Due process require two things: 1. Notice 2. Opportunity to be heard

 

Warrants require probable cause. Probable cause requires a clear showing, by more than a preponderance of the evidence, that some criminal or other unlawful activity is afoot.

To take someone's life savings over her depositing less than $10k at a time is outrageous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:31 PM

163. This is nothing less than strong-arm robbery by the government. This law is an ass.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:33 PM

179. Where's the "probable cause"?

 

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 03:40 PM

182. Has anyone said "It's Obama's Fault!" yet?

Oh, wait...I thought I was still logged into Facebook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atman (Reply #182)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 06:49 PM

195. See post # 151

at least it took that many posts to blame him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Dec 14, 2014, 10:04 PM

198. Followup: I.R.S. Asset Seizure Case Is Dropped by Prosecutors

Federal prosecutors have agreed to dismiss a case against Carole Hinders, an Iowa restaurant owner whose bank account was seized by the I.R.S. based solely on a pattern of cash deposits, Ms. Hinders’ lawyer said Friday.

“After her deposition, at which it became overwhelmingly clear that Carole was an innocent and hardworking restaurateur, the assistant United States attorney on the case told us that he informed the I.R.S. that they should not go forward with the case,” said Larry Salzman, a lawyer with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm representing Ms. Hinders.

Read the rest at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/us/irs-asset-forfeiture-case-is-dropped-.html?_r=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread