IRS Also More Than Willing To Steal Money Under The Pretense Of Crime Fighting
from the because-involuntary-taxes-aren't-thieving-enough dept
The Department of Justice and its underlings (the FBI and nearyl every law enforcement agency in the nation) have turned the ideal of asset forfeiture (defund drug dealers; return money to the defrauded, etc.) into a free-roaming, many-tentacled opportunistic beast, one that "liberates" any amount of "suspicious" cash from tourists, legitimate business owners or anyone else who just happens to have "too much" cash in their possession.
The IRS is in on this as well. The agency doesn't need to prove anyone is guilty of anything before seizing assets. It just needs to feel that things aren't quite right.
For almost 40 years, Carole Hinders has dished out Mexican specialties at her modest cash-only restaurant. For just as long, she deposited the earnings at a small bank branch a block away — until last year, when two tax agents knocked on her door and informed her that they had seized her checking account, almost $33,000.The person whose money has been seized isn't necessarily guilty of anything. Hinders hasn't been arrested, nor does there appear to be any sort of ongoing investigation. The IRS hasn't hit Hinders with tax liens for unpaid taxes or subjected her to an audit. All it did was look at records for her deposits and decide that because none of them surpassed the $10,000 mark (which triggers automatic reporting), everything in the account must be somehow illegal.
The Internal Revenue Service agents did not accuse Ms. Hinders of money laundering or cheating on her taxes — in fact, she has not been charged with any crime. Instead, the money was seized solely because she had deposited less than $10,000 at a time, which they viewed as an attempt to avoid triggering a required government report.
Here's the brain-bleeding explanation of IRS's civil forfeiture program.
Civil forfeiture is an in rem proceeding against the property itself, not the owner of property. Civil forfeiture is a process that is separated from, and not dependent on, a criminal prosecution. Civil forfeiture can proceed administratively or judicially.Hinders never needs to be charged. In fact, she never needs to be heard from again. The IRS can seize and hold this money indefinitely and decide whether or not the $33,000 is "guilty" without any input from Hinders. To opportunistic agents, any sub-$10,000 deposit is "evidence" that the depositer is deliberately avoiding reporting requirements, rather doing so for any number of more mundane, less criminal reasons.
Take this IRS seizure from last year, for example.
Since he bought it in 1978, Terry Dehko has owned Schott’s Supermarket in Fraser, Michigan. His daughter, Sandy, began working at the store when she was 12 and now helps her father run it. The IRS has not argued before a court of law that Terry and Sandy have committed a crime, but that has not stopped it from seizing their entire bank account, worth over $35,000. The IRS claims that Terry and Sandy violated federal anti-money laundering laws by making regular deposits of cash in amounts less than $10,000.But the IRS has offered no evidence that money laundering has occurred. In fact, it has done nothing more than seize Dehko's money. The explanation for Dehko's deposit patterns make perfect sense, but perfect sense won't fund further IRS activity.
Their insurance policy, aimed at small businesses like their grocery store, protects them from theft, but only up to $10,000. Since any dollar over 10,000 left in the store is liable to uninsurable theft, Terry and Sandy make sure their revenues are deposited in their bank account before accumulating above $10,000.Anyone nailed by an IRS seizure can fight for the return of their money, but there's nothing resembling due process here. Those choosing to do so would have to file a lawsuit intervening in the IRS's forfeiture case. In other words, the situation must be forced. Simply showing up and defending money from accusations of wrongdoing isn't enough. In fact, it isn't even a possibility, at least not in this case. Prosecutors for the Dehko case offered the them a "deal:" an implicit admission of guilt via a plea bargain (presumably on behalf of the guilty money) and the return of 20% of the seized funds.
There are more stories like this. A dairy had $70,000 seized by the IRS after a string of deposits following the sale of farm equipment raised bank eyebrows. Again, prosecutors offered a pennies-on-the-dollar settlement to the couple whose assets were taken. A 27-year-old vending business, heavily reliant on cash flow, had nearly $450,000 seized. Again, "structuring" of deposits was the excuse used to justify the government's theft of earned income. The IRS civil forfeiture system is every bit as crooked as the one being abused by law enforcement agencies. Perverted incentives have demolished restraint and fairness and turned it into an extremely efficient way to stockpile cash.
According to the Institute for Justice, the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7 million of seized assets in 1986. In 2008, that fund was greater than $1 billion…Fortunately for the Dehkos, they won their battle against the government and had the seized funds returned. The IRS was ordered to produce proof of wrongdoing or release the funds. It chose the latter and was additionally held responsible for $71,500 in attorneys' fees. Dropping the case also allowed the IRS to walk away from the debacle without further legal examination of its civil asset seizure policies. So, while the Dehkos obtained a win, the IRS ultimately learned nothing from the experience. The fact that the average forfeiture battle racks up over $20,000 in legal fees means that more often than not, the IRS will get to keep nearly everything it seizes.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cash, civil forfeiture, government, in rem, irs, stealing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Can we use civil forfeiture (since it's a civil action) to seize, say, IRS assets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Someone should suggest this to the Institute for Justice. Seize the IRS agent's house, car, bank account, as they're obviously proceeds of criminality. They can have 60% of the value returned if they win their intercession court case, the other 40% goes to their victims and to pay the lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
IRS seizes Joe Citizen's assets. Joe Citizen then goes into court - any court, any where - as late as five years after the fact, and demonstrates to the court that IRS seized assets in any amount. He doesn't have to show he was found innocent, or that the seizure was unjustified. He just has to show that it happened.
The court then must order the arrest of the agent in question, who will be imprisoned for absolutely not less than 1 month for every dollar's value of assets seized. The court must also order any sheriff's deputy or constable to seize assets from the agent and his family, identical to those seized by the agent. Bank accounts replace bank accounts. Cars replace cars. Houses replace houses, and so on. And if there's a problem with Joe's credit rating, well, the hapless agent has the privilege of putting that right with whatever he has left. If there's anything left after that, 95% goes to Joe Citizen, and the agent gets to keep 5%, with any fines, fees, interest, penalties, and the like deducted from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my experience, tax authorities believe they are above all other laws, constitutional or otherwise. It is the lifeblood of the state, the raison d'etre, yada yada, and good luck convincing anyone in authority otherwise, or that it's not extortion. Taxes, tithes, vig, render unto Caesar, & etc. Suggest otherwise and you're obviously a tax cheat, a libertarian, an anarchist, hate children, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kleptocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personhood
We're just one step away from granting personhood to property! Call in the Supreme Court!
Owner: "You stole my property."
Gov't: "No. Your property broke the law."
Owner: "I'll take you to court."
Gov't: "You don't have standing."
Owner:
Gov't:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personhood
Owner: [ permanent sadness ]
Gov't: [ increased budget ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personhood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just about cash anymore
The IRS is actively taking money out of bank accounts and directly transferring it away.
Do you have lots of cash? The next traffic stop can fix that for you.
Did you leave it in the bank for safekeeping? The next hungry IRS agent can fix that for you.
Taking bets on which next agency gets into the racket?
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's not just about cash anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's not just about cash anymore
dog damn i hates me some banksters...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Oh you got really close to the speed limit but didn't go over, so we are going to assume you stayed below the limit to avoid suspicion, which is suspicious."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's most outrageous is that such seizures can simply ruin a business to the ground. And taking Dehko's case it could mean the Govt would be screwing the daughter's future by depriving her of money for her college.
This is incredibly disgusting and while the original intent of such procedures could be considered noble (depriving slippery drug dealers of their funds) it was quickly and predictably twisted and abused. But remember kids, the Govt will never abuse its surveillance capabilities, Obama swears it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Next she'll be charged with 'attempted' suspicion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hinders Broke the Law
So yes, she broke the law because it was complex, she did not know any better, and the bank she dealt with did not really understand the law at first either.
The law is simple - assets can be seized whether there is evidence of wrong-doing or not. This is the problem:
-assets can be seized civilly, rather than as part of a criminal judgement.
-assets can be seized even if legitimately earned.
-the IRS can then make "offers" to cash-strapped citizens rather than returning legally earned money. Like innocent people who take plea deals just to get out of the system, the IRS bargains from an unfair advantage since it holds all the cards and the pot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hinders Broke the Law
And yes, I am for jury nullification. We have a lot of ricky tacky laws to cross people up. So many that its nearly impossible for citizens to remain lawful no matter how hard they try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hinders Broke the Law
First, judges hate it. They won't discuss it, they won't allow it to be discussed, and in fact most judges' instructions could be read to deny the very existence of jury nullification.
Second, it takes a pattern of nullification for a particular law to be seen as needing change. How many cases have you heard of lately that were resolved on the basis of jury nullification? None? Yeah, me too.
I guess what I'm suggesting is that jury nullification is one of the best kept secrets of judiciary, and is likely to remain that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hinders Broke the Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hinders Broke the Law
Then they will act responsibly or people will know how to "contact" them to get these illegal (it's theft when you didn't do anything wrong, and if the bank tells you to do it that way, the onus is on the bank, not the person) thefts reversed, and such that they do not happen again.
If a person has a history, say 20+ years in an industry doing daily deposits, then wth? That itself should be reason enough to not report.
Then add in that the bank told her to do it that way, then reported her when she did - makes you wonder how much that banker got back from the IRS for "reporting" what they told their customer to do.
SCAM SCAM SCAM FRAUD THEFT ILLEGAL
The someones involved @ the bank and @ the IRS should be shot, repeatedly, with 12 gauge rubber bullets to their privates until they are black, blue, orange, yellow and brown, then left to their own misery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hinders Broke the Law
At the MOST they should have given her a small fine proportionate to income. Instead they choose to take all of her savings and maybe doom her to financial struggling or even bankruptcy.
This is so thuggish that it can only be compared to the way gangs operate.
How about these lowlifes go after one of the big companies that keeps money enough in tax-shelters to run the whole country for a couple of years. Nooo it's too hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hinders Broke the Law
Jerry Pournelle years ago discussed the term "majestus", the (Roman) crime of paying insufficient deference to the majesty of the emperor. Basically, they could arrest you if they don't like your attitude. This is where USA Law and Order is coming to - the laws are so many and so complex that by simply being there you are likely liable to arrest and imprisonment - which means your assets can be forfeit.
The Kings of England used to arrest the nobles (who had money) on trumped up charges to extort money for release, because (like all governments everywhere, everytime) the King was perpetually broke. Eventually, the nobles had enough, rebelled, and forced John to sign the Magna Carta.
I believe the USA is in for a political shake-up that will make "change you can believe in" look like a blip in history, a redefinition of civil rights on par with the 60's civil rights movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hinders Broke the Law
These laws also make it illegal for FI employees to disclose any information regarding any reports made under the act to account holders. By indicating that "there is less paperwork" to the account holder, the bank employee(s) may have incurred liability for violating the BSA. They cannot claim ignorance because FI employees are required to undergo BSA compliance training annually.
Importantly, structuring deposits is not in itself illegal(at least so far as I am aware). Further more, reports made under BSA do not go to the IRS, they go to FinCEN(Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), where they become available to many different agencies. BSA reports also do not necessitate a legal response from any agency.
What this means is that a government agency, in this case the IRS, has acted on a FinCEN report, seizing the account in the process. Whether or not the IRS and the FI in question followed the correct/appropriate protocols and procedures in this instance I cannot say.
What is probably something that groups concerned with civil liberties(I personally do not consider the ACLU to be primarily interested in civil liberties, hence the vagueness) should be pursuing is a lawsuit alleging violation of the fourth amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hinders Broke the Law
Good point.
I found that banks saying this to be weird for an entirely different reason. When I was running my own business, I would deposit checks in excess of $10,000 on a regular basis and never one did I have to do any additional paperwork for that (nor did my bank ever even look sideways at me).
But, on thinking about it, what the bank employee probably meant was that it would cause the bank employees to have to do additional paperwork. So the bank fails on two counts: arguable violating the BSA, and complaining directly to their customers that the customers are making them work harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Power is corrupting
Absolute pwoer......is actually kind of neat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Power is corrupting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better alternative
Also:
deposit greater than 10000 -> trigger a report -> then what?
deposit less than 10000 -> trigger a report that you are trying to avoid the "greater than 10000" report -> your money is seized
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Wait
Does this mean that my bank account may get seized at some point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Wait
Second, your bank account apparently may get seized at some point regardless of what you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Wait
I believe that is correct. Payroll deposits to your account are already recorded with the IRS as part of the income tax process, but really aren't what they are looking for. What would be interesting here is if someone was being paid under the table in values less than $10,000, depositing the money, and at the end of the year declaring the money as income (as is required by law) and paying appropriate taxes, and still running afoul of this and having their money seized.
I've worked for places before (a long time ago,) that paid their employees with cash, but still reported to the IRS in the form of a W-2. I don't know of any that still pay cash, but I am sure there are a few small businesses that still do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let the government get away with theft. Write your congressman and demand that in rem proceedings be abolished!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happens when...
The writing's on the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What happens when...
That is why I always make sure my cash deposits are more than $10k at a time. It triggers an audit, but I have my accountants handle it - they should have something to do all day long anyway.
I'm not sure why these other businesses can't just do the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What happens when...
And making less than $10,000 every two weeks is not something anyone should feel sorry about, considering about 95% of Americans are in this boat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always depost more than $10K.
For most of us, making cash cash deposits only when we have more than $10K is absurdly rare and problematic on its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What happens when...
Even without the insurance company's limit on liability, it's probably a good idea to convey the deposits in smaller chunks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IRS > ISIS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My theory
Investigating law-abiding citizens is easier and safer than investigating smugglers and drug-dealers.
My theory applies to other Federal agencies like the FBI and BATF.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next, taking candy from babies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, classic child jobs are fading too...
Babysitting is questionably safe, since leaving a child with another minor is a gray zone. Paper routes are legit, but fading fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There was a program set up in the local schools around here about 10 years ago where students were taught to manage money by setting up bank accounts and depositing their allowance in it. They worked out a deal with a local bank to set up accounts for the students and their parents. I believe the first year, the accounts were free, but after the first year, the bank changed the rules without telling anyone and required a fee of $6/mo unless there was $3,000 in the account (like most banks charged.) Since $6/mo was quite a bit of money when allowance was concerned, most of the students ended up paying all of their earned money to the bank. Taught kids really quickly that managing their money meant not using a bank unless you could afford it, which was the wrong message those who implemented the education wanted, and it was shut down pretty quickly.
I think it taught a pretty good lesson though, that unless you take an active role in the management, you can pretty much bet that you will be screwed. It also taught that even the best intentions can be corrupted by pure greed (on the part of the bank, which valued ridiculous "subscription fees" over long-term goodwill and future customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which should teach kids - and their parents - how to shop around for a better bank!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Use credit unions instead.
Sneaky banking practices abound, there's little in the way of choice, and the banksters are pushing for deregulation AGAIN in a trade agreement called TISA.
Deregulation means we can't hold them to account because the rules have been abolished, which means they can keep on moving the goalposts without bothering to tell you. Shopping around for the least worst bank becomes your best option. Is that what you want?
I'm in favor of enough regulation to keep them in line so that:
all their policies are clearly stated
they are required by law to provide notice in advance of any changes to their TOS
there is a clear and simple process for redress if an error is made
the status of any and all transactions is made available at once in clear, unambiguous language
no charges may be made without prior notice
no zombie mortgages; if they foreclose, the property is their responsibility, not yours
But deregulation is awesome, right?
As are monopolies, cartels, etc...
The current situation with the banks can not be solved by shopping around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One positive that may emerge from this...
We've tolerated disclosure of deposits more than $10K for some time now, based on the bank's third-party access and cooperation. But we are presently seeing the consequences of such a dragnet surveillance policy in action: perversion of the original purpose, with substantial, quantifiable damage.
A bank's service, storage of capital for safekeeping, is akin to a private vault, or even a cloud data service such as DropBox. There is no reason under the US Constitution that the government should have free access to deposit records.
If our agencies keep going, they may end up showing that even warrants and court-orders themselves are too much power for a judicial body to have.
Again, not that any such changes will occur before there is either massive reform or open and bloody revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One positive that may emerge from this...
What the SAR(suspicious activity report) includes can vary greatly, but in most cases this should mean that a follow up investigation on a SAR include warrants for additional records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No damages?
And that's all? They just got the same value back, without any extra?
In my country, they would have to pay it back with interest and inflation adjustment, plus the economic loss caused to their business, plus moral damage for the emotional distress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America is soooo not your country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you get it overturned because the arresting officer failed to read your cash its Miranda rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't our entire banking industry based on trust?
But if other institutions such as the DoJ and the IRS can arbitrarily seize stowed monies, and now have a record of doing so, couldn't news of this sort of thing disrupt belief in the banking system and cause a mass collapse when people start taking their money out?
The mattress is looking pretty good as an alternative. Swiss bank accounts (or whatever the equivalent) is looking good for those who have the means to do so.
This era is reminding us that all national institutions are based on organized crime, and will turn criminal once the opportunity presents itself. Even the Sicilian Mafia started as a counter-institutional organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
absolutely disgusting!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, IRS - you just got caught doing illegal shit. You should pay the monies back plus a percentage of the money as interest, calculated as the quadratic of the intersection between the amount of money stolen and the time it took to seize the assets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a Congress problem more than an IRS problem.
The IRS lost a forfeiture case at the Supreme Court in 1994 (Ratzlaf v. US) when a defendant was able to successfully make the case that he hadn't known he was "structuring" deposits in a way that could be considered illegal. The execrable federal prosecutors then complained to Congress who shamefully obliged them and changed to law to remove the requirement that the offence be "willful".
I haven't done the research to see exactly which members of Congress sponsored that legislation, but this information should be sought, and they should be exposed as being responsible for this nonsense. Any time legislators seek to remove Mens Rea (intent) from the law, they are weakening respect for the law, because eventually such a law will be unjustly abused by regulators, law enforcement and prosecutors.
See the discussion of the IRS and Ratzlaf v. US at the Volokh Conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a Congress problem more than an IRS problem.
- Juries believe cops more readily than they believe the accused.
- Congress believes prosecutors more readily than they believe those found innocent (aka, the law as written is flawed in favour of the accused).
Funny that. We're doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So fucked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the bankers and the War on Drugs?
This is disgusting!!! Once again I am forced to ask "What the F is wrong with this country?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is anyone surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broke the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably an extreme case, but that doesn't appear to be a smart move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bullies by design, cowards by choice
But it makes perfect sense, that rather than trying to rein-in loophole exploiting corporations who are sure to put up a massive, expensive and lengthly court fight, the IRS knows that picking the pockets of people who can't afford to fight them in court -- or know it would be more expensive to fight than to simply walk away and swallow the loss -- makes much better business sense.
And it's only natural that IRS agents would rather take the easy route and add a few more small notches on their belt, than spend all their time and energy "fighting the good fight" and probably losing in the end.
The one notable exception to the "too big to jail" rule was Megaupload and Kim Dotcom, who had the required millions to mount a decent defense, but his targeting by the Feds was only because much bigger and more-connected corporations wanted him and his company dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New IRS business model
2. Nothing
3. Profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a pattern here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I see a pattern here - it is the inside of my eye lids!!
Among fascists, party labels are mere PR fakery, as they all seek the same end - to fleece the flock, forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White Hats and Black Masks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cash Businesses Don't Pay the Mordida
-------------------------------------------------------
MITCH HOTTS, "COUNTY: Macomb business owners' suit against IRS thrown out," Advisor & Source Newspapers, Macomb County, Michigan , Thursday, June 19, 2014
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2014/06/19/news/doc53a198e3d1fe1654099911.txt
---------- --------------------------------------------
There is an element of "protection money" in this, of course, in the sense that armored-car companies create employment for ex-cops, and charge their customers a percentage of the money collected. However, it also provides more financial controls. The store owner might stick $500 in an envelope every few minutes, and stick it in the slot of the drop-safe, which automatically time-stamps the envelope. The armored-car company institutes whatever controls are necessary to keep the IRS happy, which may ultimately work out to taking over the cash registers and running them. At any rate, armored car service is often more expensive than credit-card processing, perhaps 3-5%. A small businessman might try to evade the unofficial "tax" by having employees carry money to the bank, even when his receipts were getting up to the five-or-ten-million a year region. The real issue is probably the amount per month or per year, not the amount transfered at any one time. If the IRS begins losing too many of these kinds of cases, the law will simply be amended to specify total monthly or annual sums.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cash Businesses Don't Pay the Mordida
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitutionality is not as respected as you would think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the use of cash
[ link to this | view in chronology ]