Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Johnny Law
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:02PM
Apparently the IRS has the power to seize all your money on the mere suspicion that you might be doing something illegal.
http://theweek.com/article/index/270692/speedreads-irs-seizes-womans-entire-savings-because-she-deposits-less-than-10000-at-a-time
An Iowa woman named Carole Hinders saw her bank balance go from $33,000 to zero thanks to IRS confiscation. Hinders, who owns a small, cash-only Mexican restaurant, has not been charged with any crime and is not suspected of tax fraud. The IRS says they took her money solely because she deposited too little of it at a time, and the agency claims she did so to avoid the required reporting of any bank transaction over $10,000. She says she just thought it was helpful to save the bank paperwork.
Though the $10,000 rule is ostensibly designed to help catch terrorists and drug dealers, it is far more often used on regular citizens who are unlikely to ever see their money returned. "I don't think [the IRS is] really interested in anything," said a lawyer representing another seizure case. "They just want the money."
To keep her restaurant afloat following the confiscation of her savings, Hinders has had to take out a second mortgage and max out her credit cards. "How can this happen?" she asks. "Who takes your money before they prove that you've done anything wrong with it?"
http://theweek.com/article/index/270692/speedreads-irs-seizes-womans-entire-savings-because-she-deposits-less-than-10000-at-a-time
An Iowa woman named Carole Hinders saw her bank balance go from $33,000 to zero thanks to IRS confiscation. Hinders, who owns a small, cash-only Mexican restaurant, has not been charged with any crime and is not suspected of tax fraud. The IRS says they took her money solely because she deposited too little of it at a time, and the agency claims she did so to avoid the required reporting of any bank transaction over $10,000. She says she just thought it was helpful to save the bank paperwork.
Though the $10,000 rule is ostensibly designed to help catch terrorists and drug dealers, it is far more often used on regular citizens who are unlikely to ever see their money returned. "I don't think [the IRS is] really interested in anything," said a lawyer representing another seizure case. "They just want the money."
To keep her restaurant afloat following the confiscation of her savings, Hinders has had to take out a second mortgage and max out her credit cards. "How can this happen?" she asks. "Who takes your money before they prove that you've done anything wrong with it?"
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Lois Lerner
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:21PM
Another reason to cut the IRS budget to the bone and then some.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Who will fix this?
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:28PM
Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too many know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing lawmakers.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Tax Man
()
Date: October 28, 2014 11:30PM
Lois Lerner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another reason to cut the IRS budget to the bone
> and then some.
Pay your taxes. You're using all the shit we provide. Fucking pay for it, bitch.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another reason to cut the IRS budget to the bone
> and then some.
Pay your taxes. You're using all the shit we provide. Fucking pay for it, bitch.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Legal Warning
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:04AM
The IRS has been doing this since long before September, 2001. The original purpose of the law was not related to terrorism. It was intended to go after those who tried to hide cash income to avoid taxes, or to conceal criminal activity. The law makes it a crime to both deposit $10,000 or more into the bank at one time without filing the proper reporting documents, and to break up deposits of $10,000 into smaller sums in order to avoid those reporting requirements. In addition to being a crime, the IRS is authorized to institute civil forfeiture actions to seize the assets involved. They do quite often return it if the taxpayer can satisfy the IRS that the money came from a legitimate source, and that all income was reported on tax returns.
There is nothing illegal about not grouping your deposits so that they exceed $10,000. If your business regularly took in $5,000 to $7,000 per day and you made daily deposits, you would not violate the law. It might be a good idea though to let your bank know that is what you are doing, and to make sure you do fill out the necessary paperwork if the daily deposit exceeds $10,000. Quite often it is bank compliance officers that alert the IRS to the transactions.
There is nothing illegal about not grouping your deposits so that they exceed $10,000. If your business regularly took in $5,000 to $7,000 per day and you made daily deposits, you would not violate the law. It might be a good idea though to let your bank know that is what you are doing, and to make sure you do fill out the necessary paperwork if the daily deposit exceeds $10,000. Quite often it is bank compliance officers that alert the IRS to the transactions.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
3dXE3
()
Date: October 29, 2014 07:19AM
I don't trust cash only businesses. I get that they don't want to pay the credit card fees, but cash only places often fail to report income and pay taxes and they frequently short their employees on pay. The owners are more often than not non-US citizens and the employees almost always are, at least in this area. Cash only business like seemingly small mom n' pop stores, restaurants and nail salons can be money launderers for drug dealers and human traffickers too. Take your money to legitimate businesses. I'll bet that when all is said and done, it will be shown that this women failed to report income.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Its ALL lawmakers you dumbass
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:03AM
Who will fix this? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too many
> know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> lawmakers.
So its just the right-wing lawmakers?
That's funny, the Democrats have simultaneously held the Presidency, Senate, and House several times since the "drug war" started and they never repealed any of those laws or even tried to slow them down.
ALL lawmakers are the problem dumbass, ALL OF THEM. Your tribe is just as guilty.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too many
> know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> lawmakers.
So its just the right-wing lawmakers?
That's funny, the Democrats have simultaneously held the Presidency, Senate, and House several times since the "drug war" started and they never repealed any of those laws or even tried to slow them down.
ALL lawmakers are the problem dumbass, ALL OF THEM. Your tribe is just as guilty.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Nostradamus
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:05AM
The person above me is really angry lol
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
two party failure
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:12AM
Its ALL lawmakers you dumbass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who will fix this? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too
> many
> > know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> > lawmakers.
>
> So its just the right-wing lawmakers?
>
> That's funny, the Democrats have simultaneously
> held the Presidency, Senate, and House several
> times since the "drug war" started and they never
> repealed any of those laws or even tried to slow
> them down.
>
> ALL lawmakers are the problem dumbass, ALL OF
> THEM. Your tribe is just as guilty.
Well said.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who will fix this? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too
> many
> > know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> > lawmakers.
>
> So its just the right-wing lawmakers?
>
> That's funny, the Democrats have simultaneously
> held the Presidency, Senate, and House several
> times since the "drug war" started and they never
> repealed any of those laws or even tried to slow
> them down.
>
> ALL lawmakers are the problem dumbass, ALL OF
> THEM. Your tribe is just as guilty.
Well said.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Furthermore...
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:43AM
Nostradamus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The person above me is really angry lol
He also hasn't been paying any attention. It's right-wingers who have done the demagoguing of such issues, and while a few of them might be nominal D's in some locales, mistaking party for ideology is another sin committed principally by right-wingers. Binary-thinking morons who see things only in terms of black-and-white or home-and-away are never going to get anything down right. The seeds of old-style asset forfeiture lie in the RICO statutes of the 1970's which were part of a then still legitimate battle against the Mafia and other major forms of organized crime. They were unfortunately expanded to be of use in the misguided and abusive War on Drugs and again in the misguided and abusive War on Terror. The abusive parts of both these misguided latter-day efforts are traceable directly to right-wingers, people who ever wish to position themselves at some extreme so they can call their opponents "soft on whatever-it-is". They don't need what they push to make any actual long-term sense. It is all about their own personal and political short-term gain, and it is the rest of us who then end up living with the disastrous down-stream consequences of such shallowness.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The person above me is really angry lol
He also hasn't been paying any attention. It's right-wingers who have done the demagoguing of such issues, and while a few of them might be nominal D's in some locales, mistaking party for ideology is another sin committed principally by right-wingers. Binary-thinking morons who see things only in terms of black-and-white or home-and-away are never going to get anything down right. The seeds of old-style asset forfeiture lie in the RICO statutes of the 1970's which were part of a then still legitimate battle against the Mafia and other major forms of organized crime. They were unfortunately expanded to be of use in the misguided and abusive War on Drugs and again in the misguided and abusive War on Terror. The abusive parts of both these misguided latter-day efforts are traceable directly to right-wingers, people who ever wish to position themselves at some extreme so they can call their opponents "soft on whatever-it-is". They don't need what they push to make any actual long-term sense. It is all about their own personal and political short-term gain, and it is the rest of us who then end up living with the disastrous down-stream consequences of such shallowness.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
off topic
()
Date: October 29, 2014 10:35AM
Education is getting real lousy when people think Iowa is in Fairfax County.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
PMxxX
()
Date: October 29, 2014 10:38AM
3dXE3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't trust cash only businesses. I get that
> they don't want to pay the credit card fees, but
> cash only places often fail to report income and
> pay taxes and they frequently short their
> employees on pay. The owners are more often than
> not non-US citizens and the employees almost
> always are, at least in this area. Cash only
> business like seemingly small mom n' pop stores,
> restaurants and nail salons can be money
> launderers for drug dealers and human traffickers
> too. Take your money to legitimate businesses.
> I'll bet that when all is said and done, it will
> be shown that this women failed to report income.
I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing by the IRS when this woman's been taking cash straight home from the register.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't trust cash only businesses. I get that
> they don't want to pay the credit card fees, but
> cash only places often fail to report income and
> pay taxes and they frequently short their
> employees on pay. The owners are more often than
> not non-US citizens and the employees almost
> always are, at least in this area. Cash only
> business like seemingly small mom n' pop stores,
> restaurants and nail salons can be money
> launderers for drug dealers and human traffickers
> too. Take your money to legitimate businesses.
> I'll bet that when all is said and done, it will
> be shown that this women failed to report income.
I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing by the IRS when this woman's been taking cash straight home from the register.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Back to the drawing board
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:00PM
PMxxX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all
> these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing by
> the IRS when this woman's been taking cash
> straight home from the register.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But she hasn't been charged with, much less convicted of, anything. Interesting that agencies can simply keep a percentage of everything they seize. If Congress leaves you a little short, you can just write yourself a nice little supplemental by seizing stuff. This is just plain bad business, and it has been from the start.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all
> these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing by
> the IRS when this woman's been taking cash
> straight home from the register.
Maybe yes, maybe no. But she hasn't been charged with, much less convicted of, anything. Interesting that agencies can simply keep a percentage of everything they seize. If Congress leaves you a little short, you can just write yourself a nice little supplemental by seizing stuff. This is just plain bad business, and it has been from the start.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Fo Sho Nuff
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:34PM
Dat woman be a Obama worshipping tax cheat fo shor!
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
cENTL
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:41PM
The IRS is the Democrats' favorite weapon.
And, as Hillary said, that woman didn't make that restaurant, we all did. So, the money is all of ours.
And, as Hillary said, that woman didn't make that restaurant, we all did. So, the money is all of ours.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:44PM
Who will fix this? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too many
> know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> lawmakers.
You are partially correct.
This bastard enforcement is a product of the War on Drugs hyperbole.
But the use of the RICO Act, mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all supported and promoted by the Congressional Black Caucus in the 80's. To their credit, they have withdrawn support for these laws, but they were on the same witch hunt as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fall-out from the stupid War on Drugs and too many
> know-nothing get-tough-on-somebody right-wing
> lawmakers.
You are partially correct.
This bastard enforcement is a product of the War on Drugs hyperbole.
But the use of the RICO Act, mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all supported and promoted by the Congressional Black Caucus in the 80's. To their credit, they have withdrawn support for these laws, but they were on the same witch hunt as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 12:46PM
3dXE3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't trust cash only businesses. I get that
> they don't want to pay the credit card fees, but
> cash only places often fail to report income and
> pay taxes and they frequently short their
> employees on pay. The owners are more often than
> not non-US citizens and the employees almost
> always are, at least in this area. Cash only
> business like seemingly small mom n' pop stores,
> restaurants and nail salons can be money
> launderers for drug dealers and human traffickers
> too. Take your money to legitimate businesses.
> I'll bet that when all is said and done, it will
> be shown that this women failed to report income.
You are right about cash only businesses, but why isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to seize anyones money?
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't trust cash only businesses. I get that
> they don't want to pay the credit card fees, but
> cash only places often fail to report income and
> pay taxes and they frequently short their
> employees on pay. The owners are more often than
> not non-US citizens and the employees almost
> always are, at least in this area. Cash only
> business like seemingly small mom n' pop stores,
> restaurants and nail salons can be money
> launderers for drug dealers and human traffickers
> too. Take your money to legitimate businesses.
> I'll bet that when all is said and done, it will
> be shown that this women failed to report income.
You are right about cash only businesses, but why isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to seize anyones money?
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
LOL...
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:00PM
cENTL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The IRS is the Democrats' favorite weapon.
According to car-thief and all-purpose lying asshole Darrell Issa.
> And, as Hillary said, that woman didn't make that
> restaurant, we all did. So, the money is all of
> ours.
While you completely misunderstand the point I'm sure, It wasn't Hillary who first raised it. It wasn't even Obama. It was Prof. Elizabeth Warren before she became Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
-------------------------------------------------------
> The IRS is the Democrats' favorite weapon.
According to car-thief and all-purpose lying asshole Darrell Issa.
> And, as Hillary said, that woman didn't make that
> restaurant, we all did. So, the money is all of
> ours.
While you completely misunderstand the point I'm sure, It wasn't Hillary who first raised it. It wasn't even Obama. It was Prof. Elizabeth Warren before she became Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Who will fix this?
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:32PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This bastard enforcement is a product of the War
> on Drugs hyperbole. But the use of the RICO Act,
> mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all
> supported and promoted by the Congressional Black
> Caucus in the 80's.
No, they weren't. Tough-on-crime nonsense was driven by right-wing reactionaries and demagogues -- fans of one-size-fits-all "send a message" and "make an example" laws if ever there were any. Liberal votes in favor would have been for a least bad option in the place of mad rush to a worse one, with hopes of making fixes to that down the line. This is how politics works.
> To their credit, they have withdrawn support for
> these laws, but they were on the same witch hunt
> as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
As noted earlier, these laws need to be considered separately, and it needs to be recognized that what were once justifiable laws were later perverted by the bad guys with no actual justification at all. The Black Caucus has meanwhile not been an ally of racists or fascists at all. To claim so is to misrepresent the facts.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This bastard enforcement is a product of the War
> on Drugs hyperbole. But the use of the RICO Act,
> mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all
> supported and promoted by the Congressional Black
> Caucus in the 80's.
No, they weren't. Tough-on-crime nonsense was driven by right-wing reactionaries and demagogues -- fans of one-size-fits-all "send a message" and "make an example" laws if ever there were any. Liberal votes in favor would have been for a least bad option in the place of mad rush to a worse one, with hopes of making fixes to that down the line. This is how politics works.
> To their credit, they have withdrawn support for
> these laws, but they were on the same witch hunt
> as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
As noted earlier, these laws need to be considered separately, and it needs to be recognized that what were once justifiable laws were later perverted by the bad guys with no actual justification at all. The Black Caucus has meanwhile not been an ally of racists or fascists at all. To claim so is to misrepresent the facts.
Best Bars in Tyson's Corner for MILF's, Cougars and Drunk Soccer Mom's
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:39PM
Who will fix this? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This bastard enforcement is a product of the
> War
> > on Drugs hyperbole. But the use of the RICO
> Act,
> > mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all
>
> > supported and promoted by the Congressional
> Black
> > Caucus in the 80's.
>
> No, they weren't. Tough-on-crime nonsense was
> driven by right-wing reactionaries and demagogues
> -- fans of one-size-fits-all "send a message" and
> "make an example" laws if ever there were any.
> Liberal votes in favor would have been for a least
> bad option in the place of mad rush to a worse
> one, with hopes of making fixes to that down the
> line. This is how politics works.
>
> > To their credit, they have withdrawn support
> for
> > these laws, but they were on the same witch
> hunt
> > as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
>
> As noted earlier, these laws need to be considered
> separately, and it needs to be recognized that
> what were once justifiable laws were later
> perverted by the bad guys with no actual
> justification at all. The Black Caucus has
> meanwhile not been an ally of racists or fascists
> at all. To claim so is to misrepresent the facts.
Asshole, you don't know at all what the fuck you are talking about. You probably weren't even alive when Len Bias died and almost every black politician in America was screaming for blood.
This is a quick summary, look at the events around the mid and late 80's...
http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/
Fucking eat shit, OK?
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This bastard enforcement is a product of the
> War
> > on Drugs hyperbole. But the use of the RICO
> Act,
> > mandatory sentencing and asset seizure were all
>
> > supported and promoted by the Congressional
> Black
> > Caucus in the 80's.
>
> No, they weren't. Tough-on-crime nonsense was
> driven by right-wing reactionaries and demagogues
> -- fans of one-size-fits-all "send a message" and
> "make an example" laws if ever there were any.
> Liberal votes in favor would have been for a least
> bad option in the place of mad rush to a worse
> one, with hopes of making fixes to that down the
> line. This is how politics works.
>
> > To their credit, they have withdrawn support
> for
> > these laws, but they were on the same witch
> hunt
> > as the fascistic repubs of the 80's.
>
> As noted earlier, these laws need to be considered
> separately, and it needs to be recognized that
> what were once justifiable laws were later
> perverted by the bad guys with no actual
> justification at all. The Black Caucus has
> meanwhile not been an ally of racists or fascists
> at all. To claim so is to misrepresent the facts.
Asshole, you don't know at all what the fuck you are talking about. You probably weren't even alive when Len Bias died and almost every black politician in America was screaming for blood.
This is a quick summary, look at the events around the mid and late 80's...
http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/
Fucking eat shit, OK?
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 08:28AM by WingNut.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Henro
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:40PM
^
like when H Bush had his boys buy a HUGE rock of crack across from the WH.
like when H Bush had his boys buy a HUGE rock of crack across from the WH.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Henro
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:42PM
ie
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:44PM
Henro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ie
Dude, you are a liberal panty sniffer.
Read the link I posted and discuss if you care too. Your mind is so gone you probably can't come close to comprehending.
Believe what you want, I'm sure it's gotten you far.
-------------------------------------------------------
> ie
Dude, you are a liberal panty sniffer.
Read the link I posted and discuss if you care too. Your mind is so gone you probably can't come close to comprehending.
Believe what you want, I'm sure it's gotten you far.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
POLL- Americans DO NOT TRUST Hillary!
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:44PM
http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 10:00AM by WingNut.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:45PM
1986. October. MAJOR FEDERAL DRUG WAR LEGISLATION PASSES. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 passes Congress, enacting far tougher Federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug offenders, including those caught with marijuana. Establishes a 100-to-1 disparity in punishments for crack cocaine compared with powedr form of drug. The measure is supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, though some members want even harsher penalties for drug crimes. Sixteen of nineteen African American members of the House — including Texas Rep. Mickey Leland and California Rep. Ron Dellums — co-sponsor of the bill.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR05484:@@@P
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR05484:@@@P
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Nancy Pants
()
Date: October 29, 2014 02:58PM
Thanks Reagan. Really. Thanks gipper goober.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 03:01PM
Nancy Pants Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Reagan. Really. Thanks gipper goober.
Thank this guy too, stupid motherfucker.
I guess like most scared-ass white libtards, you can never blame a black man when he is wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Reagan. Really. Thanks gipper goober.
Thank this guy too, stupid motherfucker.
I guess like most scared-ass white libtards, you can never blame a black man when he is wrong.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
transparency
()
Date: October 29, 2014 03:06PM
Why so stupid?
The war on drugs was a Republican conservative mantra. Why not buy into it, informant?
The war on drugs was a Republican conservative mantra. Why not buy into it, informant?
Border Security is CHEAPER Than Wars
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 03:10PM
`
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2015 11:04PM by WingNut.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
money go bye bye
()
Date: October 29, 2014 03:18PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right about cash only businesses, but why
> isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
>
> Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to
> seize anyones money?
The burden of proof is on the IRS, but the standard of proof is much lower because it's a civil instead of criminal case.
Instead of the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard in civil cases is "more likely than not".
In Hinders' case, she admitted that she made deposits below the $10,000 limit to avoid having to do the paperwork, which is statutorily defined as structuring in 31 U.S. Code § 5324* and also defined in 31 CFR 103.11**, and gave the IRS the excuse they needed to seize the money.
The actual procedure the IRS uses to determine if structuring has taken place is defined at http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013.html
Now because the American rule applies, each party in a lawsuit is responsible for paying his own costs. The costs of successfully pursuing an action as an innocent owner can easily balloon to $20,000.
*http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324
**http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.11
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right about cash only businesses, but why
> isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
>
> Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to
> seize anyones money?
The burden of proof is on the IRS, but the standard of proof is much lower because it's a civil instead of criminal case.
Instead of the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", the standard in civil cases is "more likely than not".
In Hinders' case, she admitted that she made deposits below the $10,000 limit to avoid having to do the paperwork, which is statutorily defined as structuring in 31 U.S. Code § 5324* and also defined in 31 CFR 103.11**, and gave the IRS the excuse they needed to seize the money.
The actual procedure the IRS uses to determine if structuring has taken place is defined at http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013.html
Now because the American rule applies, each party in a lawsuit is responsible for paying his own costs. The costs of successfully pursuing an action as an innocent owner can easily balloon to $20,000.
*http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5324
**http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/103.11
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Elliot Ness
()
Date: October 29, 2014 04:02PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right about cash only businesses, but why
> isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
The Mafia had very good lawyers. They could drag proceedings out for years, and all the while a criminal enterprise was left thriving, to the detriment of society. An ability to shut things down from the get-go was a big deal at first, but that power has been much abused since.
> Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to
> seize anyones money?
The fault in this case was in appearing to act to avoid bank reporting requirements. That's against the law, and appearances are all that the current law requires to trigger forfeiture. If you want end abuse, you will need to change the law. Be careful how you do that though.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right about cash only businesses, but why
> isn't the burden of proof on the IRS?
The Mafia had very good lawyers. They could drag proceedings out for years, and all the while a criminal enterprise was left thriving, to the detriment of society. An ability to shut things down from the get-go was a big deal at first, but that power has been much abused since.
> Shouldn't they have a case before they are able to
> seize anyones money?
The fault in this case was in appearing to act to avoid bank reporting requirements. That's against the law, and appearances are all that the current law requires to trigger forfeiture. If you want end abuse, you will need to change the law. Be careful how you do that though.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Who will fix this?
()
Date: October 29, 2014 04:50PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asshole, you don't know at all what the fuck you
> are talking about. You probably weren't even alive
> when Len Bias died and almost every black
> politician in America was screaming for blood.
Blow me, you presumptuous little turd. I was a consultant to Congress when Len Bias died, and your pointless timeline is about long festering anger over inner city problems of drug use and drug violence that had simply been ignored as they grew ever worse. Who cared if blacks were murdering each other. Who cared if gays were dying from AIDS. All part of the same right-wing problem. But this is not the history under discussion. The push for RICO expansion and ridiculous sentencing laws was a separate strand of history that came from the right, not from the left. String 'em up after all is all that the right-wing knows. And the folly of it all has been evident ever since. Want to talk about crack versus powder? Was the Black Caucus behind that too? No, it wasn't. What the Black Caucus was about was pleading for federal help in making their streets safe to walk along instead of being one long series of wild-west shoot-em ups. But the right-wing had a different agenda in mind. If you were and still are too dumb to be able to recognize the difference, that's your problem. One of a great many, I would suspect.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Asshole, you don't know at all what the fuck you
> are talking about. You probably weren't even alive
> when Len Bias died and almost every black
> politician in America was screaming for blood.
Blow me, you presumptuous little turd. I was a consultant to Congress when Len Bias died, and your pointless timeline is about long festering anger over inner city problems of drug use and drug violence that had simply been ignored as they grew ever worse. Who cared if blacks were murdering each other. Who cared if gays were dying from AIDS. All part of the same right-wing problem. But this is not the history under discussion. The push for RICO expansion and ridiculous sentencing laws was a separate strand of history that came from the right, not from the left. String 'em up after all is all that the right-wing knows. And the folly of it all has been evident ever since. Want to talk about crack versus powder? Was the Black Caucus behind that too? No, it wasn't. What the Black Caucus was about was pleading for federal help in making their streets safe to walk along instead of being one long series of wild-west shoot-em ups. But the right-wing had a different agenda in mind. If you were and still are too dumb to be able to recognize the difference, that's your problem. One of a great many, I would suspect.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
[Redacted] on the Guillotine
()
Date: October 29, 2014 07:42PM
money go bye bye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Hinders' case, she admitted that she made
> deposits below the $10,000 limit to avoid having
> to do the paperwork
NY Times:
"Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement."
If she didn't know about the law, she wasn't engaged in structuring.
The Times further notes:
"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..."
"On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by 'exceptional circumstances.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0
We need to follow the wise policy of China and engage in public executions of government employees and millionaire bankers who mis-serve and defraud the public, as was obviously the case here, in the IRS's treatment of Ms. Hinders.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In Hinders' case, she admitted that she made
> deposits below the $10,000 limit to avoid having
> to do the paperwork
NY Times:
"Ms. Hinders said that she did not know about the reporting requirement."
If she didn't know about the law, she wasn't engaged in structuring.
The Times further notes:
"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..."
"On Thursday, in response to questions from The New York Times, the I.R.S. announced that it would curtail the practice, focusing instead on cases where the money is believed to have been acquired illegally or seizure is deemed justified by 'exceptional circumstances.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html?_r=0
We need to follow the wise policy of China and engage in public executions of government employees and millionaire bankers who mis-serve and defraud the public, as was obviously the case here, in the IRS's treatment of Ms. Hinders.
Best Bars in Tyson's Corner for MILF's, Cougars and Drunk Soccer Mom's
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 07:53PM
Who will fix this? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blow me, you presumptuous little turd. I was a
> consultant to Congress when Len Bias died, and
> your pointless timeline is about long festering
> anger over inner city problems of drug use and
> drug violence that had simply been ignored as they
> grew ever worse. Who cared if blacks were
> murdering each other. Who cared if gays were
> dying from AIDS. All part of the same right-wing
> problem. But this is not the history under
> discussion. The push for RICO expansion and
> ridiculous sentencing laws was a separate strand
> of history that came from the right, not from the
> left. String 'em up after all is all that the
> right-wing knows. And the folly of it all has
> been evident ever since. Want to talk about crack
> versus powder? Was the Black Caucus behind that
> too? No, it wasn't. What the Black Caucus was
> about was pleading for federal help in making
> their streets safe to walk along instead of being
> one long series of wild-west shoot-em ups. But
> the right-wing had a different agenda in mind. If
> you were and still are too dumb to be able to
> recognize the difference, that's your problem.
> One of a great many, I would suspect.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986:
This was the act that made crack cocaine "weigh 100x" more than powder coke at sentencing....ie, a half kilo of cocaine (500g) is equal to 5g of crack cocaine..
The sentencing in federal court became mandatory for amounts exceeding this, and possession (or sale) of 5g crack or 500g powder became the same sentence, 60 months mandatory with no parole.
Who voted for this?
Julian Dixon CA
Mervyn Dymally CA
Walter Fauntroy DC
Harold Ford TN
William Gray PA
Augustus Hawkins CA
Charles Hayes IL
George Leland TX
Parren Mitchell MA
Robert Owens NY
Charles Rangel NY
Gus Savage IL
Louis Stokes OH
Alton Waldon NY
ALL members of the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS.
ALL Democrats..
ALL voted to sentence their own constituents to the same lengthy prison terms for 1/100th of the amount of cocaine.
Also in the bill that passed were mandatory sentencing for marijuana, over 100kgs would get a defendant a 5 yr mandatory with no parole. Marijuana weight was also counted by seed or sprout. 100 marijuana sprouts = 100kgs.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which pushed the limits of civil forfeiture, was had bi-partisan sponsorship, including DEMOCRATS Ted Kennedy, John Glenn and Joe Biden among several others. It was sponsored by 11 D's, 10 R's. Hey! Yessir, MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS! Never passed by the House, it was attached as an appropriations bill and signed by Reagan.
Now YES,YES these are separate pieces (of shit) legislation, but surely not the work of "right-wing" whom you blame. And, the civil forfeiture abuses did not take off until after the passing of the 1986 act. Huh man? Wonder why!
Democrats vote for shitty bills constantly and then try to pretend they didn't do it when things turn out badly. Look what they did with the Iraq War, they couldn't get to vote fast enough, now they deny ever voting, LOL.
Look you are full of shit and we know it. I totally believe the part about working as a consultant to Congress, there are plenty of parasites who pay little or selective attention and only perform one specialized function, yours was probably not very important.
Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you think no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blow me, you presumptuous little turd. I was a
> consultant to Congress when Len Bias died, and
> your pointless timeline is about long festering
> anger over inner city problems of drug use and
> drug violence that had simply been ignored as they
> grew ever worse. Who cared if blacks were
> murdering each other. Who cared if gays were
> dying from AIDS. All part of the same right-wing
> problem. But this is not the history under
> discussion. The push for RICO expansion and
> ridiculous sentencing laws was a separate strand
> of history that came from the right, not from the
> left. String 'em up after all is all that the
> right-wing knows. And the folly of it all has
> been evident ever since. Want to talk about crack
> versus powder? Was the Black Caucus behind that
> too? No, it wasn't. What the Black Caucus was
> about was pleading for federal help in making
> their streets safe to walk along instead of being
> one long series of wild-west shoot-em ups. But
> the right-wing had a different agenda in mind. If
> you were and still are too dumb to be able to
> recognize the difference, that's your problem.
> One of a great many, I would suspect.
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986:
This was the act that made crack cocaine "weigh 100x" more than powder coke at sentencing....ie, a half kilo of cocaine (500g) is equal to 5g of crack cocaine..
The sentencing in federal court became mandatory for amounts exceeding this, and possession (or sale) of 5g crack or 500g powder became the same sentence, 60 months mandatory with no parole.
Who voted for this?
Julian Dixon CA
Mervyn Dymally CA
Walter Fauntroy DC
Harold Ford TN
William Gray PA
Augustus Hawkins CA
Charles Hayes IL
George Leland TX
Parren Mitchell MA
Robert Owens NY
Charles Rangel NY
Gus Savage IL
Louis Stokes OH
Alton Waldon NY
ALL members of the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS.
ALL Democrats..
ALL voted to sentence their own constituents to the same lengthy prison terms for 1/100th of the amount of cocaine.
Also in the bill that passed were mandatory sentencing for marijuana, over 100kgs would get a defendant a 5 yr mandatory with no parole. Marijuana weight was also counted by seed or sprout. 100 marijuana sprouts = 100kgs.
The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which pushed the limits of civil forfeiture, was had bi-partisan sponsorship, including DEMOCRATS Ted Kennedy, John Glenn and Joe Biden among several others. It was sponsored by 11 D's, 10 R's. Hey! Yessir, MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS! Never passed by the House, it was attached as an appropriations bill and signed by Reagan.
Now YES,YES these are separate pieces (of shit) legislation, but surely not the work of "right-wing" whom you blame. And, the civil forfeiture abuses did not take off until after the passing of the 1986 act. Huh man? Wonder why!
Democrats vote for shitty bills constantly and then try to pretend they didn't do it when things turn out badly. Look what they did with the Iraq War, they couldn't get to vote fast enough, now they deny ever voting, LOL.
Look you are full of shit and we know it. I totally believe the part about working as a consultant to Congress, there are plenty of parasites who pay little or selective attention and only perform one specialized function, yours was probably not very important.
Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you think no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2015 08:28AM by WingNut.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Who will fix this
()
Date: October 29, 2014 07:59PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you think
> no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say. Must have realized what an ass you were making of yourself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you think
> no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say. Must have realized what an ass you were making of yourself.
POLL- Americans DO NOT TRUST Hillary!
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 08:03PM
Who will fix this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you
> think
> > no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
>
> That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say.
> Must have realized what an ass you were making of
> yourself.
Where did my tune change?
I just showed how little you know about who was behind these laws. It blame the Right Wing bogeyman with you turds as usual.
A lot of the fault lies with Dems and the CBC.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you
> think
> > no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
>
> That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say.
> Must have realized what an ass you were making of
> yourself.
Where did my tune change?
I just showed how little you know about who was behind these laws. It blame the Right Wing bogeyman with you turds as usual.
A lot of the fault lies with Dems and the CBC.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2015 10:00AM by WingNut.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
pwn'd
()
Date: October 29, 2014 08:04PM
Who will fix this Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you
> think
> > no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
>
> That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say.
> Must have realized what an ass you were making of
> yourself.
^
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyway again, you are a fucking liar if you
> think
> > no Democrats had a had in this bullshit.
>
> That's rather a dramatic change in tune, I'd say.
> Must have realized what an ass you were making of
> yourself.
^
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
WingNut
()
Date: October 29, 2014 08:08PM
Yeah, faggots...
Go Google some shit and research and tell me the Congressional Black Caucus was not behind Mandatory Sentencing..
Gonna watch some MLB.
You can go away now.
Go Google some shit and research and tell me the Congressional Black Caucus was not behind Mandatory Sentencing..
Gonna watch some MLB.
You can go away now.
idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam
Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.
Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Time for bed
()
Date: October 29, 2014 08:48PM
WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, faggots...
>
> Go Google some shit and research and tell me the
> Congressional Black Caucus was not behind
> Mandatory Sentencing..
>
> Gonna watch some MLB.
>
> You can go away now.
Past your bed time
8:30 am comes sooner than you think
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, faggots...
>
> Go Google some shit and research and tell me the
> Congressional Black Caucus was not behind
> Mandatory Sentencing..
>
> Gonna watch some MLB.
>
> You can go away now.
Past your bed time
8:30 am comes sooner than you think
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Johnny Law
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:29PM
Back to the drawing board Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PMxxX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all
> > these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing
> by
> > the IRS when this woman's been taking cash
> > straight home from the register.
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. But she hasn't been charged
> with, much less convicted of, anything.
> Interesting that agencies can simply keep a
> percentage of everything they seize. If Congress
> leaves you a little short, you can just write
> yourself a nice little supplemental by seizing
> stuff. This is just plain bad business, and it
> has been from the start.
The article states that she had to max out her credit cards and take out a second mortage on her house just to stay afloat. In America! There is already so much stacked up against the small business owner and now this. WTF. All based on allegations and possibilities. What's even worse is the voices demonizing her and saying she's probably guilty, brainwashed by your tax collars. Wake up mother fuckers.
You faggots debating about black caucus partisan bullshit from the 80's have gone full retard, as usual.
-------------------------------------------------------
> PMxxX Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I couldn't agree more. $100 bucks says that all
> > these alarmists jump at the idea of wrongdoing
> by
> > the IRS when this woman's been taking cash
> > straight home from the register.
>
> Maybe yes, maybe no. But she hasn't been charged
> with, much less convicted of, anything.
> Interesting that agencies can simply keep a
> percentage of everything they seize. If Congress
> leaves you a little short, you can just write
> yourself a nice little supplemental by seizing
> stuff. This is just plain bad business, and it
> has been from the start.
The article states that she had to max out her credit cards and take out a second mortage on her house just to stay afloat. In America! There is already so much stacked up against the small business owner and now this. WTF. All based on allegations and possibilities. What's even worse is the voices demonizing her and saying she's probably guilty, brainwashed by your tax collars. Wake up mother fuckers.
You faggots debating about black caucus partisan bullshit from the 80's have gone full retard, as usual.
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
mkNbP
()
Date: October 29, 2014 09:35PM
that's ok because the mexican president volunteered to pay the taxes on the mexicans here in USA he owes social security on, plus damages on the ones who cheated
just ask him
just ask him
Re: IRS seizes woman's entire savings because she deposits under $10,000 at a time
Posted by:
Henro
()
Date: October 30, 2014 12:46PM
Sniff:)