Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
You might take note of the fact that the IRS is simply following the law passed with a wide margin by a republican house and senate back in 2000. Again the right wing is trying to blame someone else for something they did. In this case the IRS is being blamed. If you don't like the IRS obeying the laws given to them by the GOP, then tell the GOP to quit writing stupid laws.
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
Check this one. This older lady who ran a restaurant has never been charged with a crime and yet they took $33,000. from her in 2013
Carole Hinders runs a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa; federal agents knocked on her door in 2013 to say they had seized her bank account, and she has never been charged with any crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
So going by exactly what the law says is abusing it? Don't blame the IRS because the repubs wrote a bad law that did something they didn't intend. They are bound by law to do what they are told to do.Iwas reading about this and its jaw droppingly over the line.
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
You might take note of the fact that the IRS is simply following the law passed with a wide margin by a republican house and senate back in 2000. Again the right wing is trying to blame someone else for something they did. In this case the IRS is being blamed. If you don't like the IRS obeying the laws given to them by the GOP, then tell the GOP to quit writing stupid laws.
As far as I have read these laws were designed for drug trafficking and terror associations.
If they are abusing the law it is not the GOP's fault for passing a good law is it?
Stop the partisanship and put the fault where it lays. They are abusing the laws.
Read this article.
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof of a crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
- Agencies that seize the cash can KEEP IT to pay salaries and grow their budgets
- Feds seized $446,000 from NY candy and cigarette distributor that deals mostly in cash;Iowa grandma lost $33,000 from her restaurant business
- Government can take money if it thinks people are evading financial reporting laws by depositing money in specific amounts
- Deposits of $10,000 or more trigger bank reporting requirements, so drug kingpins, terrorists and racketeers often limit their deposits to $9,900
- Law-abiding people can have their money seized; IRS can sit on the cash and try to pressure ordinary businessmen and women into settlements
- Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm, is pushing back and demanding hearings before federal judges
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
Check this one. This older lady who ran a restaurant has never been charged with a crime and yet they took $33,000. from her in 2013
Carole Hinders runs a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa; federal agents knocked on her door in 2013 to say they had seized her bank account, and she has never been charged with any crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
Check this one. This older lady who ran a restaurant has never been charged with a crime and yet they took $33,000. from her in 2013
Carole Hinders runs a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa; federal agents knocked on her door in 2013 to say they had seized her bank account, and she has never been charged with any crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
That's sad. It was either being heartless or stupid for republicans to write the law the way they did.You chose which.
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
you are being an idiot... it is CONGRESS that has to correct it, and Obama merely needs to sign it.It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
Check this one. This older lady who ran a restaurant has never been charged with a crime and yet they took $33,000. from her in 2013
Carole Hinders runs a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa; federal agents knocked on her door in 2013 to say they had seized her bank account, and she has never been charged with any crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
That's sad. It was either being heartless or stupid for republicans to write the law the way they did.You chose which.
Pretty sure obama has had SIX FUCKEN YEARS to correct that.
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
How do you know it was any republican that even introduced this law in this manner in 2000? Did I miss something? I am as Liberal as they come, and to me, this just seems like a bill that had no political posturing of sides to it, and more like congress did not think this through when they passed the law and could not and did not, foresee the consequences, nor did President Clinton.So going by exactly what the law says is abusing it? Don't blame the IRS because the repubs wrote a bad law that did something they didn't intend. They are bound by law to do what they are told to do.Iwas reading about this and its jaw droppingly over the line.
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
You might take note of the fact that the IRS is simply following the law passed with a wide margin by a republican house and senate back in 2000. Again the right wing is trying to blame someone else for something they did. In this case the IRS is being blamed. If you don't like the IRS obeying the laws given to them by the GOP, then tell the GOP to quit writing stupid laws.
As far as I have read these laws were designed for drug trafficking and terror associations.
If they are abusing the law it is not the GOP's fault for passing a good law is it?
Stop the partisanship and put the fault where it lays. They are abusing the laws.
Read this article.
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof of a crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
- Agencies that seize the cash can KEEP IT to pay salaries and grow their budgets
- Feds seized $446,000 from NY candy and cigarette distributor that deals mostly in cash;Iowa grandma lost $33,000 from her restaurant business
- Government can take money if it thinks people are evading financial reporting laws by depositing money in specific amounts
- Deposits of $10,000 or more trigger bank reporting requirements, so drug kingpins, terrorists and racketeers often limit their deposits to $9,900
- Law-abiding people can have their money seized; IRS can sit on the cash and try to pressure ordinary businessmen and women into settlements
- Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm, is pushing back and demanding hearings before federal judges
no, are YOU?Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
Are you drunk?
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
No since the bank's duties as to privacy are statutory, not Constitutional. You assume the folks are all victims. I assume they were up to something particularly the Mexican restaurant that only accepted cash. That is a huge red flag to me that they were probably being looked at for tax evasion.
So going by exactly what the law says is abusing it? Don't blame the IRS because the repubs wrote a bad law that did something they didn't intend. They are bound by law to do what they are told to do.Iwas reading about this and its jaw droppingly over the line.
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
You might take note of the fact that the IRS is simply following the law passed with a wide margin by a republican house and senate back in 2000. Again the right wing is trying to blame someone else for something they did. In this case the IRS is being blamed. If you don't like the IRS obeying the laws given to them by the GOP, then tell the GOP to quit writing stupid laws.
As far as I have read these laws were designed for drug trafficking and terror associations.
If they are abusing the law it is not the GOP's fault for passing a good law is it?
Stop the partisanship and put the fault where it lays. They are abusing the laws.
Read this article.
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof of a crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
- Agencies that seize the cash can KEEP IT to pay salaries and grow their budgets
- Feds seized $446,000 from NY candy and cigarette distributor that deals mostly in cash;Iowa grandma lost $33,000 from her restaurant business
- Government can take money if it thinks people are evading financial reporting laws by depositing money in specific amounts
- Deposits of $10,000 or more trigger bank reporting requirements, so drug kingpins, terrorists and racketeers often limit their deposits to $9,900
- Law-abiding people can have their money seized; IRS can sit on the cash and try to pressure ordinary businessmen and women into settlements
- Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm, is pushing back and demanding hearings before federal judges
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?The guy in the OP article indicated he was doing it to evade taxes. Kind of hard to call yourself a victim because you got busted by the IRS evading taxes in my mind.
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
No since the bank's duties as to privacy are statutory, not Constitutional. You assume the folks are all victims. I assume they were up to something particularly the Mexican restaurant that only accepted cash. That is a huge red flag to me that they were probably being looked at for tax evasion.
Then why doesn't the government give these people ALL OF THEIR MONEY BACK AND PAY FOR THEIR LAWYER'S FEES, to fight the false seizure?it was a woman in the article and NO she did NOT say it was to avoid taxes, it was to avoid extra paperwork/scrutiny..... unless you are talking about someone else in the article that I missed?
The man talking about trying to give his daughter money for college while avoiding taxes
Like I said..if they can PROVE the confiscation is related to criminal activity I dont have a problem with it.
I'm more concerned about it's potential for abuse. And there are examples out there that are pretty convincing that the abuse is happening.
They are keeping a percentage of these innocent people's money from what I understood, no?
80% of the cases were innocent people, lives that the gvt RUINED! This is too wide of a sweep, involving WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too many innocent people....
and if the law is over $10000 you have to fill out extra paperwork, then WHY CAN THE BANKS report to the gvt deposits that are lower than that? Isn't that an invasion of privacy, doesn't that break the constitution in so so so so many ways?
This is NOT right, no matter what...it is not right.
No since the bank's duties as to privacy are statutory, not Constitutional. You assume the folks are all victims. I assume they were up to something particularly the Mexican restaurant that only accepted cash. That is a huge red flag to me that they were probably being looked at for tax evasion.
If you are a small business, it is very expensive to pay the credit card companies for the use of their cards, you have to pay them a percentage and invest in equipment/technology that you may not have if you are a new company....recently they have come up with Swipe gadgets that attach to your Smart Phone, but even that is an expense that you wouldn't have to pay if you did all cash...it is also time consuming and if someone uses a Credit Card fraudulently at your small business, the credit card company does not pay you, you are the one out of your item sold and out of the money they paid for it....
this Mexican restaurant may or may not have been trying to avoid taxes....BUT THAT IS NOT what this law is about, this law is SUPPOSE to be about illegal drug trafficking and laundering money, NOT about someone you think is avoiding taxes and allows the IRS to take the money from the 80% of them that are INNOCENT, only 1 in 5 have been guilty of anything and 4 out of the 5 were wrongly accused.
Using the back door of another LAW, that has nothing at all to do with tax evasion to take away their money is just not right.
The Banks are telling gvt, because the gvt wants this information, and this information involves the privacy of their customers, the individual citizen....this is a back door way, that breaks our right to privacy FROM THE GVT, and search seizure protections the constitution is suppose to give us.....
It'd be one thing if they had iron clad proof it was drug money,but this appears to be out right theft.
Check this one. This older lady who ran a restaurant has never been charged with a crime and yet they took $33,000. from her in 2013
Carole Hinders runs a cash-only Mexican restaurant in Iowa; federal agents knocked on her door in 2013 to say they had seized her bank account, and she has never been charged with any crime
IRS uses drug trafficking and terror laws to seize bank accounts from taxpayers without ANY proof Daily Mail Online
That's sad. It was either being heartless or stupid for republicans to write the law the way they did.You chose which.
Pretty sure obama has had SIX FUCKEN YEARS to correct that.
