• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

OutHouse

OutHouse

Lifer
this is an agency that is out of control. so if you make fequent cash deposits to your bank the fucking IRS can come in and take your money right out of your account when you have not been accused of any crime, all under the suspicion of you may be cheating on your taxes, you deal drugs or in some sort of racketeering scheme.

WTF 😡

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/u...unts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0

The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.

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.”
Click to expand...


Army Sgt. Jeff Cortazzo of Arlington, Va., began saving for his daughters’ college costs during the financial crisis, when many banks were failing. He stored cash first in his basement and then in a safe-deposit box. All of the money came from paychecks, he said, but he worried that when he deposited it in a bank, he would be forced to pay taxes on the money again. So he asked the bank teller what to do.

“She said: ‘Oh, that’s easy. You just have to deposit less than $10,000.’”

The government seized $66,000; settling cost Sergeant Cortazzo $21,000.
Click to expand...

so the guy did NOTHING WRONG and had to pay 21K. seriously fucked up.

Law enforcement agencies get to keep a share of whatever is forfeited.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
OutHouse said:
this is an agency that is out of control. so if you make fequent cash deposits to your bank the fucking IRS can come in and take your money right out of your account when you have not been accused of any crime, all under the suspicion of you may be cheating on your taxes, you deal drugs or in some sort of racketeering scheme.

WTF 😡

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/u...unts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I'll just buy a safe and store cash there. Assholes.
 
Between this kind of stuff and targeting political opponents, who in their right mind is OK with granting these idiots even more power?
 
Civil Asset Forfeiture laws in general are in desperate need of being revised and restricted and this shouldn't be a liberal or conservative political football.
 
You guys are looking at it all wrong. What is this seized money being used for? I mean if it's going to a good cause then the end justifies the means. [/s] Redistribution will be accomplished. If not willingly, then forcibly. It's what the nation voted for. Elections have consequences.
 
All seizures needs to be based on reasonable suspicion and warrants. Conservative judges have been making dubious exceptions to this Constitutional command for long time.

Elections do have consequences, indeed. One way to stop this abusive agent actions is to make sure we elect a president who will appoint judges who will honor civil liberties.
 
boomerang said:
You guys are looking at it all wrong. What is this seized money being used for? I mean if it's going to a good cause then the end justifies the means. [/s] Redistribution will be accomplished. If not willingly, then forcibly. It's what the nation voted for. Elections have consequences.
Click to expand...

not one american who isn't part of the senate or congress voted on the patriot act.

it was passed out of fear mongering by a president that was retarded.

hey i heard they finally found wmd's in iraq... too bad they were the ones the americans sold them during the iraq-iran war...
 
master_shake_ said:
not one american who isn't part of the senate or congress voted on the patriot act.
Click to expand...

But you can say that about any law. It's funny how when it's something you personally agree with, the people voted for it. When it's something you personally don't agree with, the people didn't vote for it.

Anyways, the Patriot Act has been extended several times, so do we at least say it's our fault for re-electing people who support the Patriot Act?
 
brycejones said:
Civil Asset Forfeiture laws in general are in desperate need of being revised and restricted and this shouldn't be a liberal or conservative political football.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's not just the IRS either - cops commonly confiscate large amounts of cash "just cause". Same with guns and vehicles - we
ll just take it, and you can get a lawyer to try and prove your innocence. It's the new serfdom.
 
brycejones said:
Civil Asset Forfeiture laws in general are in desperate need of being revised and restricted and this shouldn't be a liberal or conservative political football.
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting for legislation. Asset forfeiture is becoming easier for law enforcement agencies. In many places, the revenue from cash seizures and auction profits is a noticeable item in police budgets. Politicians will stay far, far away.
 
Yeah, civil asset forfeiture is definitely going too far. While I understand the concept behind it and believe it does have its place in certain situations, it does seem like things are out of hand now.

No maybe someone can explain something to me. As I understand it, conservatives say that Obama is a socialist and we are becoming a socialist state where he wants to redistribute wealth among everybody here. However, conservatives are viewed as creating a larger police state and giving more and more power to law enforcement and Federal agencies.

Am I missing something here or do I have things messed up? If I don't, aren't these both points of view leading to the same thing since aren't most socialist states also police states?

- Merg
 
Last edited:
The Merg said:
Yeah, civil asset forfeiture is definitely going too far. While I understand the concept behind it and believe it does have its place in certain situations, it does seem like things are out of hand now.

No maybe someone can explain something to me. As I understand it, conservatives say that Obama is a socialist and we are becoming a socialist state where he wants to redistribute wealth among everybody here. However, conservatives are viewed as creating a larger police state and giving more and more power to law enforcement and Federal agencies.

Am I missing something here or do I have things messed up? If I don't, aren't these both points of view leading to the same thing since aren't most socialist states also police states?

- Merg
Click to expand...
Yup. As someone else analogized in another thread, two wings of the same bird.
 
master_shake_ said:
not one american who isn't part of the senate or congress voted on the patriot act.

it was passed out of fear mongering by a president that was retarded.

hey i heard they finally found wmd's in iraq... too bad they were the ones the americans sold them during the iraq-iran war...
Click to expand...
I see that you haven't got a dog in the fight but regardless I will tell you that nothing has changed with a Democrat in the highest office in the land and nothing changed when Democrats controlled Congress in Obama's first term.

This continual blaming of previous Presidents accomplishes nothing, zip, nada, zilch. We cannot change the past but at any given moment the future is always before us and that is where changes will be made if they are made at all.

But by all means rail on about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Reagan and everyone else you wish to blame for whatever it is you feel needs to have blame distributed. It's all meaningless.
 
boomerang said:
I see that you haven't got a dog in the fight but regardless I will tell you that nothing has changed with a Democrat in the highest office in the land and nothing changed when Democrats controlled Congress in Obama's first term.

This continual blaming of previous Presidents accomplishes nothing, zip, nada, zilch. We cannot change the past but at any given moment the future is always before us and that is where changes will be made if they are made at all.

But by all means rail on about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Reagan and everyone else you wish to blame for whatever it is you feel needs to have blame distributed. It's all meaningless.
Click to expand...

How about you stop derailing the thread?

This issue is more important than your partisan grudges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top