SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been 20 years since Congress tightened the rules on civil forfeiture, but following unanimous approval by Congress, President Trump signed the Taxpayer First Act (H.R.3151) into law last week. This law curbs the IRS's power to seize cash for "structuring" offenses.
Under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, banks must report any cash transactions greater than $10,000. But if someone frequently deposits or withdraws their cash in amounts under $10,000, the IRS could seize it for “structuring.” Even though their money was earned legitimately and despite the fact that they were never charged with a crime, in 2012, the IRS seized nearly $63,000 from Randy and more than $446,000 from Jeff. It took years of litigation and high-profile coverage before they won their money back.
Structuring can be a Kafkaesque nightmare for small-business owners, especially for entrepreneurs like Jeff and Randy who work in cash-heavy industries: Jeff runs a convenience store distribution business with his brothers on Long Island, while Randy is a dairy farmer in Maryland.
Nor were the above isolated incidents.
Between 2005 and 2012, the IRS used civil forfeiture to seize nearly $200 million in over 2,100 cases. Roughly half of all seizures involved amounts under $34,000—hardly the proceeds of the sprawling criminal enterprises structuring laws were supposed to target.
The law (called the "RESPECT Act") puts in place a common sense requirement that should have been there from the beginning:
the IRS can now only seize property for structuring if it’s “derived from an illegal source” or if the money were structured to conceal criminal activity.
The law codifies a policy change made by the IRS in 2014 due to multiple lawsuits and associated publicity. That change resulted in a dramatic drop in associated forfeitures ($31.8 Million in 2014 to $6.2 Million in 2015).
The law also requires that judges promptly review structuring seizures, a process which previously took months or even years while a citizen's funds remained in the hands of the government before a challenge would be heard.
Previous Civil Forfeiture Coverage
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12 2019, @01:16AM (1 child)
I. Can't. Even. But,...OK.... You do you, I guess. Go ahead and keep your money in a home safe. Or hide it under your mattress. Same difference, really. I just hope you don't have any burglaries. Or that your house doesn't burn down. Even assuming that neither of those happens to you, you still have the problem that your money is depreciating in value due to inflation. For my part, I'm going to stick with keeping my money in index funds for long-term safekeeping. While I won't ever join the ranks of the ueber-wealthy with that strategy, at least I have a pretty decent shot at being able to retire within the next 10-15 years in relative comfort. Not exactly rich, but not dirt poor either. Of course, my solution doesn't really address the problem of civil forfeiture but then, once you strip away the paranoia, yours doesn't either.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Friday July 12 2019, @02:55PM
You are demonstrating a pretty serious reading comprehension problem. I'd see someone about that if I were you.
--
When I dunk my cookies, I think of you.
I hold them under until the bubbles stop.