General Discussion

yellowcanine

(36,793 posts)

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

Tue Oct 28, 2014, 09:32 AM

Oct 2014

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits less than $10,000 at a time [View all] kpete Oct 2014 OP

Sue them at least then they will have to show up in court... Kalidurga Oct 2014 #1

She would lose. This is what adds fuel to the tea bagger's legitimacy joeglow3 Oct 2014 #4

There are a few issues that both the left and the teabaggers agree on. Xithras Oct 2014 #10

If this story is presented without too much slant, ZombieHorde Oct 2014 #13

Post removed Post removed Oct 2014 #116

WTF? KamaAina Oct 2014 #2

And we wonder why people do not trust the government! nt Logical Oct 2014 #3

+1. Or at least the IRS. closeupready Oct 2014 #7

And as I think about it, also banks. closeupready Oct 2014 #9

Shouldn't she be in jail too? yeoman6987 Oct 2014 #60

How in the world did you come to that conclusion? bluesbassman Oct 2014 #67

What illegal activity? Did you miss the part where she is not being accused of tax fraud? nt kelly1mm Oct 2014 #110

Imaginary Crime? ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #175

Yep! Sometimes gov. is totally out of control. n/t RKP5637 Oct 2014 #121

Institutional horseshit... TreasonousBastard Oct 2014 #5

Here is a legitimate victim of the IRS. Dawson Leery Oct 2014 #6

This sounds like far more of an 'IRS scandal' than the supposed 'scandal' Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #8

Hmm... Shadowflash Oct 2014 #11

But it wasnt all cash Solomon Oct 2014 #15

It's called "structuring." Maedhros Oct 2014 #32

I've heard the threshold for cash deposits is even less . . . brush Oct 2014 #39

For cash it's $10k tammywammy Oct 2014 #44

This is for public consumption for sure . . . brush Oct 2014 #111

So just how much did she deposit???? Historic NY Oct 2014 #12

Apparently at least $33K. That is what was in the account when it was seized. stevenleser Oct 2014 #152

I've taken out 15-20k at a time with no problems... Historic NY Oct 2014 #154

That is part of it. The guidelines for banks say something along the lines that they have to know stevenleser Oct 2014 #155

Arranging your deposits to stay under reporting thresholds is a crime Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #14

Horseshit. GeorgeGist Oct 2014 #16

What part? Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #17

It's a bad law. Throd Oct 2014 #19

Got a better plan Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #21

How about the IRS not assume I am doing something illegal? Throd Oct 2014 #23

It's not avoiding taxes, it is a sign you may be Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #25

The bottom line is the IRS should have talked to the woman and shraby Oct 2014 #29

I think most agree with this Johonny Oct 2014 #38

"it is a sign you may be" True Earthling Oct 2014 #33

Yes it is- evading reporting is a crime Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #36

Banks report account totals when Income Taxes are due. What is your point with this woman's WinkyDink Oct 2014 #144

Go look up and read the laws cited in this one Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #147

Driving Is A Sign I May Be DUI ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #176

Your analogy is flawed Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #181

No It's Not ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #196

Well, there used to be things called warrants. n/t Orsino Oct 2014 #24

The other word is investigation mrdmk Oct 2014 #28

Don't need a warrant in this case. To clarify--you don't need a warrant to msanthrope Oct 2014 #45

In fewer and fewer cases, actually. Glad that has your blessings. villager Oct 2014 #55

The 4th amendment has little to do with a business transaction msanthrope Oct 2014 #57

You should hear former Federal prosecutors talk about abuses of this law.... villager Oct 2014 #102

Yeah...except you've got the law wrong. Bank records are obtained without warrant msanthrope Oct 2014 #103

Again, having heard a former Federal prosecutor talk about abuses of this law... villager Oct 2014 #106

Which former federal prosecutor? This has nothing to do with her cash flow... msanthrope Oct 2014 #108

For fuck's sake -- the one I heard in my friend's law school class! villager Oct 2014 #183

This person has a name, right? nt msanthrope Oct 2014 #187

What's your name, msanthrope? villager Oct 2014 #197

Therein lies a hit of a problem. n/t Orsino Oct 2014 #122

Agreed...most Americans do not realize that there is very little privacy msanthrope Oct 2014 #128

Here's a better plan Gormy Cuss Oct 2014 #109

Intent matters! nt Logical Oct 2014 #18

Her intent was to avoid reporting nt Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #20

I would do the same thing. Throd Oct 2014 #22

Nope! Nt Logical Oct 2014 #54

Yep! Read the story. jeff47 Oct 2014 #77

Prove it. nt Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #115

She didn't do that. She operated a small business that produced cash deposits every day. pnwmom Oct 2014 #27

Read the story Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #30

Why you should never talk to the authorities exboyfil Oct 2014 #34

Yeah, pretty much. The IRS wins this battle, but loses the war. closeupready Oct 2014 #41

Absolutely. nt msanthrope Oct 2014 #46

She didn't say she was doing it to avoid the IRS, and they have no proof that she did. pnwmom Oct 2014 #35

She said she was doing it to evade the paperwork Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #37

What paperwork? How did she even know the paperwork was an IRS issue, and not some pnwmom Oct 2014 #40

She was acting stupidly Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #47

It's not a crime because it's NOT illegal to make deposits under $10K. pnwmom Oct 2014 #53

Close... but not quite FBaggins Oct 2014 #62

No, she did not say she did it "to avoid the reporting requirement." She said she was pnwmom Oct 2014 #65

it is NOT illegal to make deposits under $10,000.00 noiretextatique Oct 2014 #58

It is illegal to do what she reportedly did FBaggins Oct 2014 #61

No, she didn't say that. The paperwork wasn't necessarily IRS paperwork. You're assuming pnwmom Oct 2014 #66

It doesn't matter how well she understood Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #69

She didn't know it was IRS-related paperwork. Not every bit of paperwork a bank does pnwmom Oct 2014 #73

You keep saying that FBaggins Oct 2014 #75

She didn't INTEND to thwart THAT specific paperwork. pnwmom Oct 2014 #76

Again... it isn't an IRS form FBaggins Oct 2014 #79

No, she didn't have to know it was a government form of any kind. pnwmom Oct 2014 #81

Sorry... nope FBaggins Oct 2014 #83

And so now her savings are confiscated and the bank owns her house twice over Scootaloo Oct 2014 #101

It isn't IRS paperwork. It's FinCEN (a different part of Treasury) FBaggins Oct 2014 #74

The paperwork is IRS Form 8300. tammywammy Oct 2014 #48

The question isn't whether you knew that, it's whether SHE knew that. n/t pnwmom Oct 2014 #51

When you deposit over 10k, you are required to fill out the reporting info to the IRS. msanthrope Oct 2014 #49

Yes, YOU know that and you are right. But there is no evidence SHE understood what paperwork pnwmom Oct 2014 #56

That could be correct, and I think this is a ridiculous seizure. nt msanthrope Oct 2014 #59

Ignorance of the law is not a shield against the law. jeff47 Oct 2014 #82

It is when the law requires INTENT, as this law does. pnwmom Oct 2014 #86

And her INTENT was to avoid the reporting requirements. jeff47 Oct 2014 #89

No, it wasn't. Banks have LOTS of paperwork having nothing to do with reporting requirements. pnwmom Oct 2014 #94

The bank's paperwork doesn't have "US TREASURY" on them. jeff47 Oct 2014 #96

Who says the bank gave her a government form? Was that part of the evidence? pnwmom Oct 2014 #99

The main evidence is that she admitted to avoiding "the paperwork". jeff47 Oct 2014 #134

"Well, she said she did expect one, and structured her deposits to avoid it." pnwmom Oct 2014 #174

"The bank's paperwork doesn't have 'US TREASURY' on them." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #131

The bank isn't supposed to warn her FBaggins Oct 2014 #87

Yeah, I'm not meaning a formal warning jeff47 Oct 2014 #91

Of course... her spin isn't particularly plausible FBaggins Oct 2014 #93

The IRS has acknowledged they shouldn't have been doing this and so they're stopping the practice. pnwmom Oct 2014 #100

You continue to assume that repetition adds credibility FBaggins Oct 2014 #114

Apparently So Do You ProfessorGAC Oct 2014 #180

Really? Because I recently deposited a bit more than that (life insurance $$), and no bank official WinkyDink Oct 2014 #145

They will report to the IRS/Treasury. Call 'em and ask. nt msanthrope Oct 2014 #160

Good for them. Then why, in the OP's story, was such bank reporting not sufficient? WinkyDink Oct 2014 #188

Because the depositor was deliberately avoiding the reporting by structuring msanthrope Oct 2014 #190

Where was this proven? WinkyDink Oct 2014 #192

She said she did it. This is why, when you get a notice from the IRS, msanthrope Oct 2014 #193

It has to be cash to be reportable in this case FBaggins Oct 2014 #162

I've actually seen her restaurant. progressoid Oct 2014 #31

This message was self-deleted by its author randome Oct 2014 #124

Many self employed people who work for cash have similar problems SoCalDem Oct 2014 #63

So any small business AndreaCG Oct 2014 #64

No, that isn't what the law says at all Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #72

and how do they know how much she made in a day? Beaverhausen Oct 2014 #85

Odds are she said something to the teller Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #98

And as soon as it can be discerned that her deposits are not part of an actual crime Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #130

Put her through an intensive audit back several years Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #135

The Tea Party thanks you for their support. nt Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #137

What are you smoking? Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #138

Yes. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #139

Nothing I have said is untrue Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #142

She's running a cash business. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #149

No. Perhaps an example will help. jeff47 Oct 2014 #80

yes it's illegal, but it's not about enforcing a progressive tax system. It's about the drug war. fishwax Oct 2014 #136

this. n/t lumberjack_jeff Oct 2014 #140

I'm self-employed and I've never had more than $10,000 to deposit at once. Vinca Oct 2014 #26

Problem was she deposited in a US bank mikeysnot Oct 2014 #42

We are ruled by thieves and criminals. woo me with science Oct 2014 #43

This happens with bankers all the time. L0oniX Oct 2014 #50

Interesting. Arnolds Park Iowa where all my Hinders cousins live. Do not know her but she could jwirr Oct 2014 #52

She's running an all cash biz and making sub 10k deposits to avoid "paperwork" taught_me_patience Oct 2014 #68

"I almost guarantee that she's doing something shady." Wow. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #71

Odd, I thought fines and penalties were assessed after an audit. Savannahmann Oct 2014 #78

This penalty was for avoiding the reporting requirements. jeff47 Oct 2014 #84

Penalties can only be assessed upon conviction after Due Process. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #159

Not everything that is illegal is a crime. jeff47 Oct 2014 #161

"You can be fined, but you can not be sent to prison." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #165

And that has happened. jeff47 Oct 2014 #166

"Due process is, as with a speeding ticket, before a judge." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #169

She's entitled to it. jeff47 Oct 2014 #170

"Whether or not she did it in this situation I can not say, since the article does not say." Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #171

No, I'm actually paying attention to what all these people are asking to do next jeff47 Oct 2014 #172

So your solution is to keep abusing innocent middle class people as sacrificial lambs Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #173

Sure... but why is that relevant. This IS a crime FBaggins Oct 2014 #167

It's both. They picked the civil route. jeff47 Oct 2014 #168

I don't understand why it is a crime at all. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #70

It isn't a crime to deposit it. jeff47 Oct 2014 #88

I understand that. I still think it is a bad law. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #125

It IS a bad law. It's bureaucracy out-of-control. closeupready Oct 2014 #141

+1 nt laundry_queen Oct 2014 #189

Actually I believe if you deposit in two accounts you still have to fill out the form Marrah_G Oct 2014 #184

IRS=MAFIA scarystuffyo Oct 2014 #90

Shouldn't you be posting on a Tea Party forum Lee-Lee Oct 2014 #112

Bullshit Iamthetruth Oct 2014 #117

Until you change that, the law is the law. randome Oct 2014 #123

Blind obedience sucks. Nuclear Unicorn Oct 2014 #133

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Oct 2014 #119

Big banks get to do whatever they hell they want to do. A small business owner gets her money liberal_at_heart Oct 2014 #92

If only the IRS would go after criminal billionaires the way it goes after small business owners. Rex Oct 2014 #95

The IRS shouldn't have stolen her money. alarimer Oct 2014 #97

So very agreed! FiveGoodMen Oct 2014 #104

I don't know why they could not have just frozen the account HereSince1628 Oct 2014 #107

Completely agree. Except perhaps if they have a judicial warrant. closeupready Oct 2014 #143

Civil asset forfeiture laws should, at a minimum, only apply to people actually convicted of a crime Calista241 Oct 2014 #105

this is being reported in a biased way treestar Oct 2014 #113

I looked her up, and the government did in fact, file a lawsuit against her. justice1 Oct 2014 #150

I knew there was something else to the story. Thanks for looking that up. randome Oct 2014 #191

The War on Drugs continues to ruin people. B Calm Oct 2014 #118

R, D, I and Teabaggers have more in common than many realize when it comes to this shit! n/t RKP5637 Oct 2014 #120

This law may have made sense back in the day before computers, etc. yellowcanine Oct 2014 #126

Suspicions arise for more than money laundering. Maybe she was trying to avoid paying taxes. randome Oct 2014 #127

Suspicion is not probable cause. Is she living way beyond her apparent means? yellowcanine Oct 2014 #129

if she was trying to avoid paying taxes why questionseverything Oct 2014 #132

Then why include a bank at all? It isn't like she'd miss out on any meaningful interest. WinkyDink Oct 2014 #146

Because her mattresses were full? I don't know. randome Oct 2014 #156

IDGI! People pay Fed. Income Taxes ONCE A YEAR, not with every bank deposit! So HOW can it be WinkyDink Oct 2014 #148

Sales taxes? FICA taxes? randome Oct 2014 #157

Remind me please why Obama didn't clean house when he took office? Scuba Oct 2014 #151

The Bank Secrecy Act was passed in 1970 FBaggins Oct 2014 #164

No, but the violation was designed to make the IRS look abusive, a right-wing strategy. Scuba Oct 2014 #178

No it wasn't FBaggins Oct 2014 #185

Please explain how seizing this woman's assets "was designed to keep corporations .... Scuba Oct 2014 #186

Ah... then perhaps we're talking past one another FBaggins Oct 2014 #194

Outrageous! What happened to the constitutional requirement of Due Process? 3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #153

The IRS went to a judge and obtained a warrant. randome Oct 2014 #158

Due process require two things: 1. Notice 2. Opportunity to be heard 3rdwaydem Oct 2014 #177

This is nothing less than strong-arm robbery by the government. This law is an ass. Comrade Grumpy Oct 2014 #163

Where's the "probable cause"? Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #179

Has anyone said "It's Obama's Fault!" yet? Atman Oct 2014 #182

See post # 151 Beaverhausen Oct 2014 #195

Followup: I.R.S. Asset Seizure Case Is Dropped by Prosecutors PoliticAverse Dec 2014 #198