Small business owners forced to battle IRS over seized bank accounts

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-owners-battle-irs-over-seized-bank-accounts/

Andrew Clyde, a Navy veteran who served in Iraq, started his small firearms store in Athens, Ga., in the 1990s.

Over the years, he watched his business grow.

And then, on April 12, 2013, two IRS agents swooped in and seized nearly a million dollars from his company's bank account.

Clyde was on the wrong end of a murky federal program that allows agencies to seize assets they suspect could be tied to criminal activity -- even without actual criminal activity.

The soft-spoken small businessman joined others in recalling their ordeals before a House hearing on Wednesday, where IRS Commissioner John Koskinen also testified.

Koskinen, who apologized to those snared by the IRS practice, assured that the agency stopped seizing assets without clear wrongdoing in October.

But the law that allowed Clyde and others to be targeted is still on the books.

“I did not serve three combat tours in Iraq only to come home and be extorted” by the government, Clyde testified Wednesday. He urged Congress to change the law.

The law in question falls under the Bank Secrecy Act. Under the law, financial companies must report cash deposits more than $10,000. But since terrorists and other criminals know this rule, banks also must report patterns of deposits slightly below the $10,000 threshold.

Clyde was accused of what's known as "structuring" -- that is, making deposits deliberately calculated to skirt reporting requirements -- because he made frequent deposits just under $10,000.

But Clyde says he only did that because of his insurance policy.

While most transactions at Clyde Armory are not in cash, the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Conn., and the potential for new firearms laws, drove sales. Clyde's business made millions of dollars, about 15 percent of it in cash transactions. Clyde's business manager made daily deposits, and based on the dollar value of his insurance policy -- capped at $10,000 -- the company policy was to not ever hold more than $10,000 cash.

The total cost of the IRS ordeal for Clyde ran over $150,000 – including legal fees and a $50,000 settlement with the IRS to get the rest of his money back.

He pleaded Wednesday for Congress to change the law so that no one else would be hurt like he has.

"You've been violated by your government," Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., thundered at Wednesday's House Ways and Means Committee's oversight subcommittee hearing.

Clyde wasn’t the only one. Maryland creamery owner Randy Sowers and Jeff Hirsch, a tobacco and candy distributor in New York, also run legitimate businesses. Yet the IRS seized their assets anyway, creating massive legal bills and hurting their businesses.

Hirsch and Sowers lost at least $60,000 each when the IRS seized their assets for making suspicious-looking deposits. They also suffered embarrassment.

In a recent statement, Koskinen defended current IRS practices. "The IRS pursue seizures only when there is probable cause that the money is subject to forfeiture -- and only after seizure affidavits have been reviewed by a federal prosecutor and authorized by a federal judge," he said

The Institute for Justice, a Washington-based public interest law firm, is demanding reform. The institute found that in one-third of the IRS cases it examined, there was no claim of any criminal activity -- just the allegation of “structuring.” It took an average of one year to get the money back, and only half of it was returned, according to the study. The firm's analysis showed the median amount seized was $34,000.

House oversight subcommittee members showed sympathy to the panelists on Wednesday and appeared to voice bipartisan support for reworking the law.


Another story of a hard working, law abiding citizen being targeted by the federal government. Not because he committed a crime but because the federal government decided it could target him.


Tyranny.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?

More likely that they'll attach such a measure to one intended to gut the IRS completely, then blame Obama.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?

More likely that they'll attach such a measure to one intended to gut the IRS completely, then blame Obama.

You just can't help yourself, can you?
 

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,973
6,340
136
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?

More likely that they'll attach such a measure to one intended to gut the IRS completely, then blame Obama.
Let's point fingers at the other side when every American should be pissed. Good job.


Edit: Bazinga

:p
 
Last edited:

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,351
14
61
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?

More likely that they'll attach such a measure to one intended to gut the IRS completely, then blame Obama.



Put away your weeny. No one is pointing at either party. Instead of being so focused on defending your Dear Leader, focus a bit on the truth.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Like I said- here's their big chance to change the law. Dems won't be standing in the way of any measure accomplishing that, provided it's not full of too many poison pills, a fave tactic of Repups as of late. By all means- have at it, gentlemen.

Koskinen pointed out that the IRS has already curtailed the practice, undoubtedly with executive approval. Or is that fact a bit too inconvenient?
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
I read that and my first thought was

HOLY FUCK HOW HAVE THEY NOT GIVEN HIM HIS MONEY BACK PLUS EXTRA?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-owners-battle-irs-over-seized-bank-accounts/




Another story of a hard working, law abiding citizen being targeted by the federal government. Not because he committed a crime but because the federal government decided it could target him.


Tyranny.

This is what you get when you let the "Tough on crime!" rhetoric rule the day instead of that which protects civil liberties. Perhaps Congress will finally do something about tactics such as this and civil asset forfeiture.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?
-snip-

This is less about laws and much more about the administration of the IRS.

No amount of fine tuning the language of a law can substitute for good judgement and common sense by appointed administrators.

This problem rests within the Treasury, the IRS to be specific.

Below is a link to a chart showing the number of seizures. Notice a trend? Like the big jump in 2010? (See page 12 as marked at bottom of page.)

http://ij.org/images/pdf_folder/private_property/seize-first-question-later.pdf

In short, the responsibility to fix this is on the Exec branch, not Congress.

Fern
 
Last edited:

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
I was just thinking that having financed the sale of my business could lead to an account of mine being seized. Regular monthly deposits of the same amount may be drawing attention on the half of the screen not running porn of some IRS agent right now.

And great link Fern. :thumbsup:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
Well, now that Repubs control Congress, I'm sure they'll do something about it, just like the last time they controlled Congress, right?

More likely that they'll attach such a measure to one intended to gut the IRS completely, then blame Obama.

Geez, can't we just all agree that this bullshit should stop? Why does it have to delve into political fingerpointing within the first 5 posts?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
This is less about laws and much more about the administration of the IRS.

No amount of fine tuning the language of a law can substitute for good judgement and common sense by appointed administrators.

This problem rests within the Treasury, the IRS to be specific.

Below is a link to a chart showing the number of seizures. Notice a trend? Like the big jump in 2010? (See page 12 as marked at bottom of page.)

http://ij.org/images/pdf_folder/private_property/seize-first-question-later.pdf

In short, the responsibility to fix this is on the Exec branch, not Congress.

Fern

I would really love to see a very simple law passed by congress that says:

"No Federal, state or local government can jack your shit based until you have been convicted of the crime that the agency is using as justification to jack your shit. Any agency that violates this must return 500% of the monetary value, along with any physical shit jacked, to the person they jacked."

Done.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,835
48,566
136
Holder mentioned that the changes to DOJ policy that are being made are part of a larger review of federal forfeiture procedures, hopefully they find their way to the IRS also. These reforms are long overdue from the administration.

Congress could actually do something also about the issue in general but has consistently declined taking any action.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,835
48,566
136
In short, the responsibility to fix this is on the Exec branch, not Congress.

Either branch can fix this. That nobody has should be more troubling as to the general state of our government.

If Congress could pass something, say the bill that Rand Paul has been flogging for two years, without some absurd poison pill (ACA repeal, defunding the EPA, etc) I think it is extremely likely Obama would sign it. Absent that he should have used his executive power to curtail it long ago though seems to be getting around to it lately.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Holder mentioned that the changes to DOJ policy that are being made are part of a larger review of federal forfeiture procedures, hopefully they find their way to the IRS also. These reforms are long overdue from the administration.

Congress could actually do something also about the issue in general but has consistently declined taking any action.

I dont have high hopes Holders policy change will last long with this douchelord set to replace him.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgel...h-civil-asset-forfeiture-and-thats-a-problem/

the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers.

Do these people sound familiar? They should as the OPs article mentioned them. Lynch had a hand in stealing their money.

The editorial discloses the facts of the Bi-County Distributors case, overseen by Lynch’s office. Bi-County is a small business run by Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch. Their business deals largely in small amounts of cash and in May 2012, their account held $446,651.11, when it was confiscated entirely by Eastern District prosecutors.

Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.


Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Geez, can't we just all agree that this bullshit should stop? Why does it have to delve into political fingerpointing within the first 5 posts?
Because of two things. First, much of the left is fine with government breaking the law as long as it persecutes the "right" people and businesses, as seen in the widespread support for this kind of behavior in every single thread about it. IRS targeting conservative groups? Good, they should. Treasury pressuring banks to shut down the "wrong kind" of businesses? That's just good government. Treasury seizing assets without cause from gun stores and tobacco shops? They did nothing wrong! Same idiots every time.

Second, in this case this is directly driven by politics. It isn't abortion clinics and paraphernalia shops being targeted, it's gun stores, tobacco stores, small loan businesses - all the people Obama and the hard left dislike. Same thing happened under Carter. I had high hopes when Holder announced the moratorium on states and cities using federal laws to seize assets; now I understand Obama just didn't like other people choosing whom to target. Serves me right for thinking any politician might do anything supporting individual liberty except for his own constituency groups.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,835
48,566
136
I dont have high hopes Holders policy change will last long with this douchelord set to replace him.

Obviously the change didn't come without prompting from the administration. It may yet survive the transition but it would be nice if the president or congress would actually get off the dime and do more aggressive reform of the process (or eliminate it entirely).
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
30,320
31,374
136
Asset forfeiture shouldn't be a left/right debating point. The government has been given entirely to much authority and to many tools to work with in this area and its time for the legislative branch to do roll it back.
 

Bock

Senior member
Mar 28, 2013
319
0
0
Civil Asset Forfeiture is a travesty of epic proportions. It's the same kind of shit that goes down in 3rd world countries ffs.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Because of two things. First, much of the left is fine with government breaking the law as long as it persecutes the "right" people and businesses, as seen in the widespread support for this kind of behavior in every single thread about it. IRS targeting conservative groups? Good, they should. Treasury pressuring banks to shut down the "wrong kind" of businesses? That's just good government. Treasury seizing assets without cause from gun stores and tobacco shops? They did nothing wrong! Same idiots every time.

Second, in this case this is directly driven by politics. It isn't abortion clinics and paraphernalia shops being targeted, it's gun stores, tobacco stores, small loan businesses - all the people Obama and the hard left dislike. Same thing happened under Carter. I had high hopes when Holder announced the moratorium on states and cities using federal laws to seize assets; now I understand Obama just didn't like other people choosing whom to target. Serves me right for thinking any politician might do anything supporting individual liberty except for his own constituency groups.

Double straw man! Bravo!