Jump to content

Be careful how you deposit money


Guest Dabnis

Recommended Posts

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

 

Does it matter if the NY Times said essentially the same thing?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/politics/rules-change-on-irs-seizures-too-late-for-some.html?_r=0

 

or maybe Forbes?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/05/08/civil-asset-forfeiture-viper-bites-nc-business-owner-who-now-fights-to-get-his-money-back/2/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

This sounds a lot like presumption of guilt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

This sounds a lot like presumption of guilt.

 

 

 

 

 

You may be right, but the IRS operates by their own set of rules. That money will not be released without evidence and the onus is completely on the victim to supply it as wrong as that might be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

This sounds a lot like presumption of guilt.

 

 

 

 

 

You may be right, but the IRS operates by their own set of rules. That money will not be released without evidence and the onus is completely on the victim to supply it as wrong as that might be.

 

 

If you think that the IRS behavior in this case is wrong, than why do you seem to be enjoying the victim's plight?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

If I read the articles correctly Mr. McLelland didn't/hasn't broken the law & the IRS still has his money.

Maybe he should be allowed to be "Innocent" until proven guilty?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I read the articles correctly Mr. McLelland didn't/hasn't broken the law & the IRS still has his money.

Maybe he should be allowed to be "Innocent" until proven guilty?

 

Dabs

 

Unfortunately for US (collectively) the IRS rules don't work that way. I do get BL's point, and the ire at the way the IRS goes about seizures.I think that in this case, unless they've got proof that he shielded the income in his tax filings, that they are blatantly abusing a statute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

If I read the articles correctly Mr. McLelland didn't/hasn't broken the law & the IRS still has his money.

Maybe he should be allowed to be "Innocent" until proven guilty?

 

Dabs

 

Unfortunately for US (collectively) the IRS rules don't work that way. I do get BL's point, and the ire at the way the IRS goes about seizures.I think that in this case, unless they've got proof that he shielded the income in his tax filings, that they are blatantly abusing a statute.

 

 

If I read the articles correctly, the IRS has "changed their policy" on this, or words to that effect. However, I think they still

have Mr. McLellands money? Might be better to deposit in smaller amounts?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the problem, he deposited in small amounts. If he had deposited them in a nice big lump sum, it would have been duly reported and no issue assuming he showed on his taxes the income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that was the problem, he deposited in small amounts. If he had deposited them in a nice big lump sum, it would have been duly reported and no issue assuming he showed on his taxes the income.

 

So - should he batch his daily deposits so that they exceed the bank's reporting threshold? There's no risk in accumulating an inordinate amount of cash on hand to prevent over-zealous IRS action, is there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

 

 

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

 

A long time ago, when I went to salesman's school, the instructor said "Never put your hands in another man's pockets".

Meaning, don't assume he can't afford your product or service. Hard to know how much money a person has/makes by his appearance,

where he lives or does business.

 

If the IRS can not prosecute Mr. McLelland, they should give him his money back. Perhaps they shouldn't have taken it before

they proved him guilty?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

 

 

Not even close to being an expert on anything, especially taxes. I suppose the car sale gain might be considered capital gains &

taxed accordingly, if he declares it? :D "Don't ask, don't tell"

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

 

 

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

 

A long time ago, when I went to salesman's school, the instructor said "Never put your hands in another man's pockets".

Meaning, don't assume he can't afford your product or service. Hard to know how much money a person has/makes by his appearance,

where he lives or does business.

 

If the IRS can not prosecute Mr. McLelland, they should give him his money back. Perhaps they shouldn't have taken it before

they proved him guilty?

 

Dabs

 

 

I wouldn't make that assumption based on normal information. McClellands store doesn't look like it has even $5,000 in inventory and it is off the beaten path. Using Google, you can find it by looking up L&M Convenience Store, Fairmont, NC.

 

I agree with you that the IRS should be slapped upside the head for taking part in this. Civil asset forfeiture is an evil tool and should not be allowed without a court's involvement. Unfortunately for McClellan, the onus is on him to get his money back, that should be a really easy thing to do, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

 

 

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

 

A long time ago, when I went to salesman's school, the instructor said "Never put your hands in another man's pockets".

Meaning, don't assume he can't afford your product or service. Hard to know how much money a person has/makes by his appearance,

where he lives or does business.

 

If the IRS can not prosecute Mr. McLelland, they should give him his money back. Perhaps they shouldn't have taken it before

they proved him guilty?

 

Dabs

 

 

I wouldn't make that assumption based on normal information. McClellands store doesn't look like it has even $5,000 in inventory and it is off the beaten path. Using Google, you can find it by looking up L&M Convenience Store, Fairmont, NC.

 

I agree with you that the IRS should be slapped upside the head for taking part in this. Civil asset forfeiture is an evil tool and should not be allowed without a court's involvement. Unfortunately for McClellan, the onus is on him to get his money back, that should be a really easy thing to do, right?

 

 

Damn!!, you are quick. Actually, it is nobody's business how much he has/makes, assuming he is not violating the law. "Easy to do"?

Apparently not, I think the articles said he had a lawyer? $$$$$

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it's the IRS's business who believes he has broken the law. He also does have a lawyer who is working for him pro bono. If he has receipts justifying the deposits and can show that it wasn't done to avoid reporting, why hasn't he gotten his money back?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Obviously it's the IRS's business who believes he has broken the law. He also does have a lawyer who is working for him pro bono. If he has receipts justifying the deposits and can show that it wasn't done to avoid reporting, why hasn't he gotten his money back?

 

Don't know? I assume the bank or banks have provided all the information requested? I am getting the impression

you & Flash may think Mr. McCllan has done something naughty? I don't think he has been prosecuted or convicted?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was the first part of the sentence, that it's nobody's biz.

 

It actually IS the gov'ts biz, whether, or not, you're breaking the law.

 

I'm pretty sure I report all my income to the IRS, and I'm not breaking any laws I'm aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

 

 

Apparently the IRS has changed their policy on this issue? Perhaps being "suspicious" wasn't working for them?

 

In any event, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. McLelland has not been charged or convicted?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

it was the first part of the sentence, that it's nobody's biz.

 

It actually IS the gov'ts biz, whether, or not, you're breaking the law.

 

I'm pretty sure I report all my income to the IRS, and I'm not breaking any laws I'm aware of.

 

Oh my, more wordsmithing. How about if I say "As long as Mr. McLellan obeys the tax laws, the only business

of knowing how much he makes/has is the IRS's" ?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

 

 

Apparently the IRS has changed their policy on this issue? Perhaps being "suspicious" wasn't working for them?

 

In any event, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. McLelland has not been charged or convicted?

 

Dabs

 

 

I'm completely for Mr. McClelland, as long as he can prove his innocence. The IRS is out of line and should involve the courts in any seizure, period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

 

 

Apparently the IRS has changed their policy on this issue? Perhaps being "suspicious" wasn't working for them?

 

In any event, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. McLelland has not been charged or convicted?

 

Dabs

 

 

I'm completely for Mr. McClelland, as long as he can prove his innocence. The IRS is out of line and should involve the courts in any seizure, period.

 

 

Agree, I am not anxious to subsidize anyone. My biggest tax sin is to have some tax free Muni Bond Mutual Funds.

As mentioned, it appears the IRS has backed off this policy, to what extent, I don't know.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

We all have our tax sins, what we need is tax reform where everyone pays painlessly and without fear.

 

Flat tax, no deductions.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We all have our tax sins, what we need is tax reform where everyone pays painlessly and without fear.

 

Flat tax, no deductions.

 

Dabs

 

 

Just the other day, Ben Carson was on Fox advocating a 15% flat tax, he was beaten up pretty bad by Chris Wallace who said that studies show that we would have to be in the low to mid twenties to balance the budget. I don't know about you, but that seems pretty high to me. So I think we need to expand our ideas for a fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple really, a tax of income would need to be in the 20% range as that's how big the fed spend is, about 20% of GDP. Now, open up cap gains, inheritance, wealth and you can get creative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple really, a tax of income would need to be in the 20% range as that's how big the fed spend is, about 20% of GDP. Now, open up cap gains, inheritance, wealth and you can get creative.

 

Agreed and the sooner we have that conversation the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

All kinds of possibilities. Another layer could be a National Sales Tax, it would give the "47%" a chance

to participate, on a smaller scale.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

 

 

Apparently the IRS has changed their policy on this issue? Perhaps being "suspicious" wasn't working for them?

 

In any event, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. McLelland has not been charged or convicted?

 

Dabs

 

 

I'm completely for Mr. McClelland, as long as he can prove his innocence. The IRS is out of line and should involve the courts in any seizure, period.

 

 

He doesn't have to prove his innocence because he has not been charged with anything.

 

His money has been charged with a crime (a civil violation, actually). He must prove his money innocent.

 

We can't punish people who have not been proven guilty in this country. You don't know that? He is not being punished. His money is.

 

I'm guessing you haven't followed the thread d'ranger referenced. Here's the link:

 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159053

Link to post
Share on other sites

"All kinds of possibilities. Another layer could be a National Sales Tax, it would give the "47%" a chance

 

to participate, on a smaller scale.

 

 

 

Dabs"

 

 

A flat tax would give the 1% & corporations a chance to contribute too, on a larger scale!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

Thanks for the laugh Killery..jerk.gif.pagespeed.ce.TMGfqs4Lzz3lWNrIH9

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

"All kinds of possibilities. Another layer could be a National Sales Tax, it would give the "47%" a chance

 

to participate, on a smaller scale.

 

 

 

Dabs"

 

 

A flat tax would give the 1% & corporations a chance to contribute too, on a larger scale!

 

Yep, "Flat Tax" one size fits all. If the price of goods & services go up as a result, so be it, then everybody suffers the same,

"Flat suffering".

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

It appears he doesn't have the money he once had? "His money is being charged"? Interesting way to put it.

 

Dabs

 

I'm nowhere near interesting enough to make up something like that.

 

That's the actual state of the law. Money and other property can be charged with violations and seized. This leads to some very amusing case names in court but what I view as some very unjust results.

 

Badlat said a court should be involved. They are. That's not the problem. The problem is what is NOT involved: a conviction of an individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it's the IRS's business who believes he has broken the law. He also does have a lawyer who is working for him pro bono. If he has receipts justifying the deposits and can show that it wasn't done to avoid reporting, why hasn't he gotten his money back?

 

Because the IRS efficiency is graded upon it's collections? Perhaps because the bureaucracy within that agency is so convoluted that 3 people sitting in the same office have no idea what the other's doing, and can and do submit opposing decisions on a single question? I dunno - I've been fighting them for 6 years to reverse a return that they "adjusted" for me, basically negating deductions for 2 of my kids, and costing me over $20K in taxes/penalties as a result. I can't get the same person on the phone/to respond to a letter, and they all tell me they "see what happened", and yet, I'm still fighting for my money back, for a mistake that THEY made.

 

yeah - I have no problem understanding and commiserating that even being completely innocent of any wrongdoing, that the IRS is either intentionally or unintentionally bending him over the barrel.

 

The IRS is the only part of our government that is NOT subject to premise of "innocent until proven guilty", and that needs to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously it's the IRS's business who believes he has broken the law. He also does have a lawyer who is working for him pro bono. If he has receipts justifying the deposits and can show that it wasn't done to avoid reporting, why hasn't he gotten his money back?

 

Because the IRS efficiency is graded upon it's collections? Perhaps because the bureaucracy within that agency is so convoluted that 3 people sitting in the same office have no idea what the other's doing, and can and do submit opposing decisions on a single question? I dunno - I've been fighting them for 6 years to reverse a return that they "adjusted" for me, basically negating deductions for 2 of my kids, and costing me over $20K in taxes/penalties as a result. I can't get the same person on the phone/to respond to a letter, and they all tell me they "see what happened", and yet, I'm still fighting for my money back, for a mistake that THEY made.

 

yeah - I have no problem understanding and commiserating that even being completely innocent of any wrongdoing, that the IRS is either intentionally or unintentionally bending him over the barrel.

 

The IRS is the only part of our government that is NOT subject to premise of "innocent until proven guilty", and that needs to change.

 

 

I have a long personal dislike for the IRS which I have detailed before. I agree completely and sympathize with you that the IRS needs to be reformed and reformed sooner than later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Tom,

 

It appears he doesn't have the money he once had? "His money is being charged"? Interesting way to put it.

 

Dabs

 

I'm nowhere near interesting enough to make up something like that.

 

That's the actual state of the law. Money and other property can be charged with violations and seized. This leads to some very amusing case names in court but what I view as some very unjust results.

 

Badlat said a court should be involved. They are. That's not the problem. The problem is what is NOT involved: a conviction of an individual.

 

 

I did not mean that you "Made it up", just the concept of his money being charged, or whatever, was interesting.

No dis-respect to you intended. Yes, if he hasn't been convicted & no further action is in progress, it appears he should get his money back.

 

So, Mr. McLellan owns & runs a convenience store. Probably generates more cash sales than credit or billing. Perhaps, not wanting to

keep cash on hand, it is deposited daily, weekly, or monthly in amounts less than $10,000? Perhaps the IRS finds this suspicious?

I wonder how they know about it? Maybe the Bank Manager doesn't like Mr. McLellan?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks have to report large deposits and they also have to report if they think they see "structuring" which is depositing somewhat below the reporting threshold repeatedly in an effort to avoid reporting.

 

It appears the bankers may have told him to engage in structuring, or at least hinted it would be a good idea "to avoid paperwork."

 

It's likely he was engaging in structuring, which is illegal.

 

OK, charge him with that, convict him, then take the money. This whole "take the money and then force the citizen to prove the innocence of his property" approach has got to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Banks have to report large deposits and they also have to report if they think they see "structuring" which is depositing somewhat below the reporting threshold repeatedly in an effort to avoid reporting.

 

It appears the bankers may have told him to engage in structuring, or at least hinted it would be a good idea "to avoid paperwork."

 

It's likely he was engaging in structuring, which is illegal.

 

OK, charge him with that, convict him, then take the money. This whole "take the money and then force the citizen to prove the innocence of his property" approach has got to go.

 

Totally agree. Kind of like a son-in-law that doesn't like you going to the "Authorities", claiming you are unstable & having

your guns confiscated until you can prove you are innocent of the allegation.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

no, not really

 

Flash, I will bite. "Guilty until proven innocent" is the concept I had in mind. That result seems to

be there in the IRS case & potential "Unstable" case?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

one is a case of gov't over-reach with seemingly no remedy.

 

the other is civilian, due to the auto-err on the side of caution. Easily remedied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

one is a case of gov't over-reach with seemingly no remedy.

 

the other is civilian, due to the auto-err on the side of caution. Easily remedied.

 

"Easily remedied"?I have read of cases where the accused was found "Not guilty" only to find the local police

had his guns destroyed.

 

Regardless of the jurisdiction the concept of "Guilty until proven innocent" prevails. Pick away. :D

 

Anyway, whether Mr. McLellan was structuring or not, it appears the IRS still has his money without

a conviction.

 

Dabs

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

one is a case of gov't over-reach with seemingly no remedy.

 

the other is civilian, due to the auto-err on the side of caution. Easily remedied.

 

"Easily remedied"?I have read of cases where the accused was found "Not guilty" only to find the local police

had his guns destroyed.

 

Regardless of the jurisdiction the concept of "Guilty until proven innocent" prevails. Pick away. :D

 

Anyway, whether Mr. McLellan was structuring or not, it appears the IRS still has his money without

a conviction.

 

Dabs

 

Dabs

 

 

I know there is one such case, don't know about "cases" but the two types of seizures are legally different anyway. In the gun case, the property is not charged with a crime. It is taken under a different rationale.

 

The IRS has some scary powers and they arguably need them to suppress cheating. They do have his money without a conviction, or even a charge against him. It would be better if they had to at least charge him with a crime, even if they didn't have to get a conviction before taking money or other property. Better still would be requiring a conviction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

one is a case of gov't over-reach with seemingly no remedy.

 

the other is civilian, due to the auto-err on the side of caution. Easily remedied.

 

"Easily remedied"?I have read of cases where the accused was found "Not guilty" only to find the local police

had his guns destroyed.

 

Regardless of the jurisdiction the concept of "Guilty until proven innocent" prevails. Pick away. :D

 

Anyway, whether Mr. McLellan was structuring or not, it appears the IRS still has his money without

a conviction.

 

Dabs

 

Dabs

 

 

I know there is one such case, don't know about "cases" but the two types of seizures are legally different anyway. In the gun case, the property is not charged with a crime. It is taken under a different rationale.

 

The IRS has some scary powers and they arguably need them to suppress cheating. They do have his money without a conviction, or even a charge against him. It would be better if they had to at least charge him with a crime, even if they didn't have to get a conviction before taking money or other property. Better still would be requiring a conviction.

 

 

Apparently, the gun owner lost his guns, after being found "Not guilty", regardless of who or what was "charged", after

false allegations were brought against him. Keeping guns from real mentally sick people is a good thing. The process,

however, has some real potential for personal vendettas with little to no protection of the accused.

 

I drifted into gun territory making a comparison, my apologies.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

. Yes and no. Check your state laws on that. I bought a 56 Chevy for $5000 that needed work after I finished the car a couple of years later I got a letter from the state stating that they "decided the car was worth $15,000 and I owed additional sales tax. I found out the state IRS was cruising car shows and looking at plates and values. I told them to fuck off producing pics and receipts for what I added I was surprised they let it go.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

 

 

If I am reading the article correctly, Mr. McLellan is out $22,000 in legal fees incurred while trying to defend himself, that the IRS

will not pay for. That is a fair amount for someone accused, but not proven of wrong doing, to have to pay for.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

 

 

If I am reading the article correctly, Mr. McLellan is out $22,000 in legal fees incurred while trying to defend himself, that the IRS

will not pay for. That is a fair amount for someone accused, but not proven of wrong doing, to have to pay for.

 

Dabs

 

 

McClellan is out $3,000 for legal fees and $19,000 for a forensic accountant used to establish his innocence. I really think he should counter sue for that money along with the interest the IRS won't give him either. What makes it doubly shameful is that he has to sue to be restored at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

If I am reading the article correctly, Mr. McLellan is out $22,000 in legal fees incurred while trying to defend himself, that the IRS

will not pay for. That is a fair amount for someone accused, but not proven of wrong doing, to have to pay for.

 

Dabs

Dabs, I'm concerned you've stopped taking your medications. In one thread you want to put a 10 year old kid in an institution with no due process, yet in this thread you rail on about the govt doing something without due process.

 

Shitzophrenic much?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

Fairmount is close to Charlotte. There is lots of money there.

 

I hate the fucking IRS. The bastards pick targets and abuse power on a regular basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

I'm glad the bad publicity relieved him of his burden to prove his property innocent. I still don't think he should have ever had that burden.

 

He's not getting the legal and accounting fees back, nor the interest, but he should.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

well, maybe it is, given that any $10k transaction must be reported...

 

I said "assuming he has not violated the law", or something similar.

 

Dabs

 

 

The IRS went after him because he had a "history" of beating the $10,000 rule. His niece made the deposits for him and said that the bank told her that making smaller deposits would avoid a lot of paperwork.

 

 

Apparently the IRS has changed their policy on this issue? Perhaps being "suspicious" wasn't working for them?

 

In any event, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. McLelland has not been charged or convicted?

 

Dabs

 

 

I'm completely for Mr. McClelland, as long as he can prove his innocence. The IRS is out of line and should involve the courts in any seizure, period.

 

That is exactly the problem. It is not his duty to prove innocence, it is the duty of the IRS to prove guilt. That is one of the things that make this country different. But then we have the IRS, which operates outside of the Constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

Fairmount is close to Charlotte. There is lots of money there.

 

I hate the fucking IRS. The bastards pick targets and abuse power on a regular basis.

 

 

Fairmount to Charlotte is 125 miles, not exactly close. If you look at a map, it is literally in the middle of nowhere.

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

I'm glad the bad publicity relieved him of his burden to prove his property innocent. I still don't think he should have ever had that burden.

 

He's not getting the legal and accounting fees back, nor the interest, but he should.

 

 

Yes, he should sue and he should lobby congress to slap some rules into the IRS playbook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The Fox News article indicated that he had made "deposits" which signaled the IRS software that something was amiss. The IRS also privately made available documents concerning this case to the committee members of congress while making the comment that Mr. McClellan needs to offer proof rather than publicity to fight this seizure. There is something going on here and I'm sure that we are not being made privy to it. I could be wrong of course, but this town doesn't inspire me as one that would produce a $107,000 bank balance in multiple years. Witness downtown Fairmont, NC population 2,753

fairdept.jpgbos.jpgmrgs.jpg

Fairmount is close to Charlotte. There is lots of money there.

 

I hate the fucking IRS. The bastards pick targets and abuse power on a regular basis.

 

 

Fairmount to Charlotte is 125 miles, not exactly close. If you look at a map, it is literally in the middle of nowhere.

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

I'm glad the bad publicity relieved him of his burden to prove his property innocent. I still don't think he should have ever had that burden.

 

He's not getting the legal and accounting fees back, nor the interest, but he should.

 

 

Yes, he should sue and he should lobby congress to slap some rules into the IRS playbook.

 

My bad about the location of Fairmount. I traveled through there on the way to the ocean quite a bit when I lived in Charlotte. That was a brain fart. Still, the main point stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

 

 

If I am reading the article correctly, Mr. McLellan is out $22,000 in legal fees incurred while trying to defend himself, that the IRS

will not pay for. That is a fair amount for someone accused, but not proven of wrong doing, to have to pay for.

 

Dabs

 

 

McClellan is out $3,000 for legal fees and $19,000 for a forensic accountant used to establish his innocence. I really think he should counter sue for that money along with the interest the IRS won't give him either. What makes it doubly shameful is that he has to sue to be restored at all.

 

 

Ah, Bad, sharp eyes. When I wrote that I said to myself: "Self, I wonder if some sharp eyed person will notice I lumped the $22,000

into one source, being "legal" costs?

 

Sure enough, there you are, good job. I would suspect Mr. McLellan is more concerned about the amount than where the payments go?

 

I am surprised you beat Flash to to the punch, he is generally "Johnny jump up on the spot" to correct me, again, good shooting. :D

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing I would enjoy more than seeing some IRS agents on unemployment with no job prospects. Karma is a bitch sometimes.

I'd hate the thought of still having to support the bastards. Now if they were forced to work as floor cleaners at Walmart we would have some justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is nothing I would enjoy more than seeing some IRS agents on unemployment with no job prospects. Karma is a bitch sometimes.

I'd hate the thought of still having to support the bastards. Now if they were forced to work as floor cleaners at Walmart we would have some justice.

 

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that as in most oppressive bureaucracies, that the worker-level agents don't establish the corporate climate, they mirror it. Not condoning the behavior, just reminding folks that the issue comes from the executive direction - and that comes from the tax code and cabinet level pressures.

 

THAT is where changes are necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

I'm glad the bad publicity relieved him of his burden to prove his property innocent. I still don't think he should have ever had that burden.

 

He's not getting the legal and accounting fees back, nor the interest, but he should.

 

it's an unfortunate reality in the US legal system that defendants pay their own costs (unless criminal court and you accept the PD)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

 

This is great news, but it doesn't tell us if he won this disagreement because he was vindicated by facts, or if the IRS just capitulated because they wanted to be rid of bad publicity. I'm sure he is happy to have his money back, but if it were me, I would like to have my money back along with an apology and the earned interest. It's appalling that there are 830 additional cases like this one, that's a problem that should not be ignored.

If I am reading the article correctly, Mr. McLellan is out $22,000 in legal fees incurred while trying to defend himself, that the IRS

will not pay for. That is a fair amount for someone accused, but not proven of wrong doing, to have to pay for.

 

Dabs

Dabs, I'm concerned you've stopped taking your medications. In one thread you want to put a 10 year old kid in an institution with no due process, yet in this thread you rail on about the govt doing something without due process.

 

Shitzophrenic much?

 

 

Oh Flash, there you go again. I did not say what you said I said., He should have had an evaluation by a professional before being

released to his parents, however long that might take. What he did is extremely serious stuff with the definite possibility of lives being lost.

 

End of drift.

 

So, I have been thinking, it seems that you & that Bent Sailor fellow have a lot in common, nit-picking, big drifts, persistent beyond

belief, & so on. Although Bent's posts were considerably longer, there are/were many similarities? Why would someone change their user name?

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I explained my name change already. Now you're suffering from memory loss?

 

Your comments on the other thread were very clear, even though you've now backed away. Your comments on this thread are contrary in philosophy. No due process for a kid when it might directly impact you, but due process for some random goober who doesn't know how to properly account for business transactions. I figure the goober came across Drudge or something similar and you got your outrage on.

Diagnosis: Rightie schitzophrenia coupled with memory loss, damn. Sucks to be you.

 

I bet you've been on the board of an HOA as well. We call them fascists.

 

Sorry, don't know Bent other than seeing his posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fox News doesn't give enough information to be able to come to any conclusion about this. I can't even feel for the guy without some kind of evidence. If he is looking for support he should show where the money was legally earned and deposited in a timely fashion and without any attempt at structuring. Either way this goes it is his burden to prove.

 

I'm glad the bad publicity relieved him of his burden to prove his property innocent. I still don't think he should have ever had that burden.

 

He's not getting the legal and accounting fees back, nor the interest, but he should.

 

it's an unfortunate reality in the US legal system that defendants pay their own costs (unless criminal court and you accept the PD)

 

 

True, and since the money was the defendant here, I guess we should change things so that the money gets its money back. With interest. And legal fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

Of course he does.

Really- cheat the government out of taxable income?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

I explained my name change already. Now you're suffering from memory loss?

 

In all this excitement, I must have missed it

 

Your comments on the other thread were very clear, even though you've now backed away. Your comments on this thread are contrary in philosophy. No due process for a kid when it might directly impact you, but due process for some random goober who doesn't know how to properly account for business transactions. I figure the goober came across Drudge or something similar and you got your outrage on.

 

Yawn, I haven't changed what I said

 

Diagnosis: Rightie schitzophrenia coupled with memory loss, damn. Sucks to be you.

 

Not really, I enjoy all this good entertainment

 

I bet you've been on the board of an HOA as well. We call them fascists.

 

No, I was not on the Board of Directors, but was in a position where I reported to them, "Did what I was told", you know.

 

Sorry, don't know Bent other than seeing his posts.

 

Too bad, you two would have made a formidable pair, could have kicked ass on the good folks on the right, big time.

 

Dabs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that as in most oppressive bureaucracies, that the worker-level agents don't establish the corporate climate, they mirror it. Not condoning the behavior, just reminding folks that the issue comes from the executive direction - and that comes from the tax code and cabinet level pressures.

 

THAT is where changes are necessary.

I agree. However there is too much money to be made buy peddling individualized solutions to the highest bidder. We will never see a good fix to the tax code. Also, the IRS is the exception. They pick targets and ruthlessly pursue those targets without regard of Constitutional Rights of the accused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed it does not. This looks like government abuse to me.

 

Question:

My cousin bought a 56 T-Bird for $5000 dollars 10 or 12 years ago. I've been badgering him for years to sell it to me. His wife recently hinted that they might be willing to let it go for 15K. If I buy the car from him, does he have to declare the income on his taxes?

 

I know that I have to pay sales tax on the $15000 but that is not the question.

Of course he does.

Really- cheat the government out of taxable income?

 

That's what I told him, but he says that he's spent more than the potential profit on maintenance and restoration over the years and that technically he's losing money at that price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously it's the IRS's business who believes he has broken the law. He also does have a lawyer who is working for him pro bono. If he has receipts justifying the deposits and can show that it wasn't done to avoid reporting, why hasn't he gotten his money back?

What if he socked it away in his mattress for the past number of years and already paid taxes on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...