| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
IRS Seizes Life Savings From Another Small Business For Using Cash
Friday, May 1, 2015 11:25
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
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, totaling more than $107,000.
See full story HERE
Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/05/irs-seizes-life-savings-from-another.html
This is no different than being held up at gunpoint by criminals.
Having an alphabet agency nametag or badge doesn’t grant you extra rights.
A 230g round in your forehead will certainly let you know that you aren’t all that……
The key is in the first seven seconds of the video: he’s accused of structuring deposits, e.g. making repeated deposits just under $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements for cash transactions of $10,000 or more. Under civil forfeiture, the object being forfeited is charged (e.g. U.S. v $107,000 in cash) and then the owner of that object contests the forfeiture–which should be easy to do unless he’s actually structuring deposits to avoid reporting requirements. Usually what you see in a structuring case is drug money or other dirty money being “laundered” so that it can be used. The report itself is a one-page form which takes seconds to fill out.
For the government to be able to prove a structuring case, they’d need to see a lot of deposits just under $10,000 in a short time frame, with no real explanation for how all the money came in. If, as he claims, his money was accrued over 13 years, there wouldn’t be much of a case. Or for example, he makes weekly deposits and his cash register documents show he’s consistently just under $10,000 a week and it’s been that way for years. On the other hand, if there’s 12 transactions in a month of $9,000 each with no history of prior activity, the government has a much stronger case.
What’s odd in the video is that there’s no explanation of this–a denial of any structuring. Instead, they focus on trying to tie the money to illegal activity, ignoring that structuring of transactions to avoid reporting requirements is of itself an illegal activity.