Title: IRS Seizes $107,000 From Innocent Small-Town Convenience Store Owner For 'Structuring' Deposits Source:
Information Liberation URL Source:http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=50691 Published:May 2, 2015 Author:IJ.org Post Date:2015-05-02 21:38:58 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:5435 Comments:31
Lyndon McLellan has spent more than a decade running L&M Convenience Mart, a gas station, restaurant, and convenience store in rural Fairmont, North Carolina. Then, one year ago, without any warning, agents from the IRS seized his entire bank account, totalling more than $107,000.
With that, Lyndon entered the upside down world of civil forfeiture, where the government can seize and keep ordinary Americans property without ever charging them with a crime.
The IRS and Department of Justice are pursuing forfeiture of Lyndons money despite a recent policy change designed to prevent precisely these kinds of cases. In October 2014, the IRS announced that (absent exceptional circumstances) it would pursue forfeiture in cases like Lyndons only where there was evidence that the money being seized was derived from illegal activity. The U.S. Department of Justice announced a similar policy change in March 2015.
In February 2015, during a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways & Means Oversight Subcommittee, North Carolina Congressman George Holding told IRS Commissioner John Koskinen that hed reviewed Lyndons casewithout specifically naming itand that there was no allegation of the kind of illegal activity required by the IRSs new policy. The IRS Commissioner responded, If that cases exists, then its not following the policy.
When news of the IRS Commissioners statement got back to the United States Attorney in charge of Lyndons case, he advised Lyndons attorney and accountant that he was concerned that Lyndons case document was provided to Congress, and that:
Whoever made [the document] public may serve their own interest but will not help this particular case. Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it. But publicity about it doesnt help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency. My offer is to return 50% of the money. The offer is good until March 30th COB.
Under these new policies, the government should not be pursuing forfeiture of Lyndons bank account. But the government has refused to back down, and is actively pursuing the forfeiture of Lyndons money.
Lyndon is unwilling to give the government a single penny of his hard-earned money. As he puts it, It took me 13 years to save that much money, and it took fewer than 13 seconds for the government to take it away.
Lyndon did nothing wrong. That is why he has teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight this shocking abuse of power, to get his money back and to make sure the government does not do this to anyone else.
(1 image)
The IRS and Department of Justice are pursuing forfeiture of Lyndons money despite a recent policy change designed to prevent precisely these kinds of cases.
In October 2014, the IRS announced that (absent exceptional circumstances) it would pursue forfeiture in cases like Lyndons only where there was evidence that the money being seized was derived from illegal activity. The U.S. Department of Justice announced a similar policy change in March 2015.
There was NO illegal activity, the guy ran a convenience store.
if Deckard doesn't ping readers to his BS, nobody would read it. lol
You have of course noticed they are responding less and less over time...
I firmly believe that Americans must be free from arbitrary and unlawful seizure of their private property. Congress should change the law so this doesnt happen.
But when I am being told that someone didnt know what was going on after 10 years of structuring daily deposits so that they approach $10k but never once exceeded that amount .then I will have doubts that he "doesn't know what's going on."
But when I am being told that someone didnt know what was going on after 10 years of structuring daily deposits so that they approach $10k but never once exceeded that amount .then I will have doubts that he "doesn't know what's going on."
Structuring is illegal. It's a thought crime, as it's not the actual deed that is illegal, it's what one is thinking when doing the deed that determines if a crime is being committed or not.
Apparently you consider it a crime to make many transactions with a bank over time, without having any of them exceed the $10K reporting requirement. The lesson seems to be, if you do have a bank account, make sure you do a big transaction on occasion so it won't look suspicious.
As for why a successful, medium level business would never go over the 10K transaction threshold, it could be because the companies insurance policy won't cover cash thefts that exceed, say, $10,000. So the company prudently deposits cash that it takes in so that they never have $10K in cash on company property. Then enter the IRS to claim that this company knew they were "structuring" and they then take all the money.
Then it gets posted to a discussion forum, where you then blame the victim.
I am against the IRS targeting for civil forfeiture those funds belonging to people who earned the money legally and whose only crime is trying to prevent banks from reporting cash transactions to the government.
The anti-structuring statue was intended to be used as an ancillary charge by prosecutors with other charges of nefarious behavior, primarily in drug dealing or terrorism.
Unfortunately over the last few years, the anti-structuring law is being used regularly as a standalone charge and I condemn that.
I am pleased with the IRS announcement that it will no longer try to seize and forfeit money from those who merely evade government-mandated paperwork when making large cash deposits.
The IRS should have never been doing this in the first place. It was bad public policy for the IRS to overstretch in implementing their structuring policy.
McLellan said: I didnt know what was going on. I stated that "I have doubts that he doesn't know what's going on. I stand by that statement.