Slashdot Mirror
Law Lets IRS Seize Accounts On Suspicion, No Crime Required
schwit1 writes: The IRS admits to seizing hundreds of thousands of dollars of private assets, without any proof of illegal activity, merely because there is a law that lets them do it. From the article: "Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after run-of-the-mill business owners and wage earners without so much as an allegation that they have committed serious crimes. The government can take the money without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the owners are left to prove they are innocent. Many give up and settle the case for a portion of their money.
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
'They're going after people who are really not criminals,' said David Smith, a former federal prosecutor who is now a forfeiture expert and lawyer in Virginia. 'They're middle-class citizens who have never had any trouble with the law.'" The article describes several specific cases, all of which are beyond egregious and are in fact entirely unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is very clear about this: The federal government cannot take private property without just compensation."
Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The central law, the Bank Secrecy Act and its various amendments, which is what created this legal situation, were ALL passed by a Congress where BOTH Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. These were not "Republican policies". Since they were signed into law by Republican Presidents, I must conclude that they were bipartisan,
It is possible this conclusion is wrong, so I will not argue with anyone providing evidence that this was primarily a Democratic Party idea (I can think of several explanations as to why a Republican President would sign a bill into law that he mildly disagreed with, but cannot conclude that any of those are true in this case without doing more work than I am willing to at this time).
Conclusion: This is not a "Republican policy". It is a bipartisan policy and should be unconstitutional (and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone could think that it was not).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Let me guess, in 1970 when they passed this law they did not index the amount to inflation?
Inflation since 1970 means that in 2014 the amount triggering the law is about 84% lower than it was in 1970, and that in another 100 years your kids' weekly allowance will trigger the law. Given the inability of Congress to pass anything, I do assume that the law will be unchanged for the next 100 years.
If the $10,000 dollar amount were indexed to inflation then it would be about $61,000 in 2014 dollars.