IRS Impounds Bank Accounts With No Warrant, No Cause, No Crime And It’s Legal!

In Obama’s America all the IRS needs to take all your money, freeze your accounts, and arrest you is their opinion that your assets might be suspicious. No warrants are needed, no proof of any actual crime is required. All the IRS needs is its say so and your life can be turned upside down.

A story in The New York Times reports on how the abusive, overly powerful IRS destroys lives with impunity. One woman who runs a small restaurant had all her assets stolen by the IRS and never returned even though she has never been charged with any violations of the tax code or breaking any laws.

And this woman will not likely get her money back because the forfeitures are not held until the government finally figures out if there is any guilt involved, either. No, that money is immediately doled out to the various law enforcement agencies involved in the theft and is immediately spent.

The report also notes that the IRS took this extreme action 639 times just in 2012 alone yet only prosecuted 20 percent of those cases.

What was the IRS reply to the Times?

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.”

This is a flat out admission that the agency knew full well that it was acting illicitly. After all, if the IRS thought it was acting properly it would never have made this promise to curtail the practice.

This is no longer the America where you are innocent until proven guilty. The Bill of Rights has been eliminated. We no longer live in a nation where law enforcement must have an actual case that then must be presented to a judge in order to get a warrant to proceed. We live in Obama’s America where you are all presumed guilty, where your assets are assumed to belong to Obama’s government, and if taken will never be returned whether you are actually guilty of anything or not.

Remember, America: “you didn’t build that.” Everything belongs to Obama. And you’d best just shut up and accept it.

Or vote for small government Republicans and turn this tide!

In any case, the simple fact of the matter is that Obama’s IRS is a domestic terror outfit.

Competing for the Darwin Award is ...
Dear Democrats: It isn't a poll tax.
  • GarandFan

    “In any case, the simple fact of the matter is that Obama’s IRS is a domestic terror outfit.”

    Given the totality of their actions to date, the entire administration should be prosecuted under the RICO statutes.

    Eric Holder will get right on it!

  • Michael Lang

    No doubt little Brucie loves this.

  • Vagabond661

    It is evident that the Independants and Republicans need to band together to defeat the left. The question is will it be enough to overcome the people voting with no ID.

    • Brucehenry

      The Bank Secrecy Act of 1982 is the culprit, it seems, in the Iowa restaurant case. It passed in 1982 under a GOP Senate and a Democratic House, signed by President/Saint Ronald Reagan.

      • Vagabond661

        And bastardized (like Obama phones) by the Democrats.

        • Brucehenry

          Simple minds. Childish refusal to acknowledge actual facts. Good job. Good Republican.

          • Vagabond661

            Now drink your kool aid like a good liberal. Good job!

      • yetanotherjohn

        The issue is not the bank reporting cash deposits. The issue isn’t the IRS investigating potential money laundering. The issue is how they go about it. The treasury department’s own 2013 audit found the IRS was not following the law in 30% of asset seizures. Who is going to stop IRS bureaucrats when they break the law? Obama? Holder? Don’t make me laugh. All but the most partisan of liberals recognize that the IRS targeted right leaning groups in the run up to 2012 election. If liberals were serious about wanting good government, they would lead the charge to root the wrong doers out. Not because there wouldn’t be any damage to democrats, but because the only way the liberal agenda of ever bigger and more intrusive government can go forward is if the general public thinks the bureaucrats are impartial and will follow the law. The evidence is mounting that the IRS is not impartial and is not following the law. If the only purpose of government is to enrich the cronies, then why should the little guy cooperate when not being coerced? If you have ever seen the results of dysfunctional third world countries where the governments don’t follow the rule of law, you would understand the problem with the path that Obama and the liberals are heading down. It’s great for lining the pockets of the liberals in the short term, but it doesn’t work in the long term.

  • Paul Hooson

    Governments at all levels can more easily do a tax garnishment of a bank account than other creditors. But, they are required to provide you with the proper challenge to garnishment papers at the time of garnishment, where you can exempt at least $936 dollars in income for a 30 day period, and up to $3000 to $40000 in other asset exemptions. You generally have 30 to 90 days to file to unfreeze portions of your assets, which can often be better than a tax foreclosure of a property.

  • Brucehenry

    There were 114 seizures of this type in 2005 according to the article. When did this practice begin?

    EDIT: See my comment below.

  • LiberalNightmare

    I wonder what the political history of the victims might be?

  • Brucehenry

    From the NYT article:

    “Using a law designed to catch drug traffickers, racketeers, and terrorists by tracking their cash, the government has gone after….”

    Several laws, actually, two of the most important of which are the RICO Act of 1970 and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

    This has been going on for years and years. Now that I think of it, I remember reading about it in the Reader’s Digest in the 1980s.

    • Vagabond661

      Imagine all they would catch if they did that for illegal aliens.

    • Jwb10001

      It’s hard to imagine this practice standing up in court, wonder if any of these people have filed suit.

      • Brucehenry

        It’s my understanding that many have, and few have won. But again this has been happening for many years. It accelerated greatly, as I understand it, under the PATRIOT Act.

      • Brucehenry

        Here’s some history. Trying to pin this on Obama as if it was some new and nefarious power grab is completely dishonest or profoundly ignorant. Which description do YOU think fits Warner?

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephendunn/2013/02/18/asset-forfeiture-is-anything-but-civil/

        • Vagabond661

          You should really, REALLY read your link

          • Brucehenry

            I read it. I see that the practice has been accelerating. I’m not defending it. I’m just pointing out it’s been happening a long time and the outrage here is predictable. Were you jumping up and down in 2005 when 114 of your fellow Americans were subjected to it?

          • Vagabond661

            Thanks for not defending it. I confess I was not made aware of this law in the last 6 years much less all the way back to 1982. I read your Forbes link, twice.

            Yes it seems to have accelerated and even more so with Lois Lerner’s IRS (hard drive crashed doggone it! Yes you need all of YOUR records you wretched taxpayer). Out of the 114 times, I believe 30% was found to be without merit. That is an outrage.

            We have WTH to thank to bring this to the forefront. The law evidently was abused because Congress tried to correct several times thru several presidencies, Republican and Democrat. If we believe the IRS is non-partisan no matter who is President, what is the motive? Political? Payback?

          • Brucehenry

            Warner “brings this to the forefront” by pretending that this outrageous practice is some kind of new harbinger of an imaginary “Obama’s America” where your assets aren’t safe from “Obama’s government.”

            Yet this practice has been occurring for THIRTY TWO YEARS, being abused under two Republican and one Democratic administration before a law was passed that attempted to reform it. FOURTEEN YEARS ago. Before the passage of the 1982 law the RICO Act of 1970 was often abused to confiscate assets without proper due process. Even after the passage of the reform act of 2000 the PATRIOT Act made easier the abuse of citizen rights. Right through the last GOP administration and into this Democratic one.

            So, no, Warner is no hero for “bringing this to the forefront.” This is another of Warner’s selective outrage/rewriting of history to gin up the rubes.

  • Brucehenry

    In light of the fact that the Bank Secrecy Act was passed in a previous administration, maybe one of Warner’s paragraphs should be revised:

    “As of 1982, this is no longer the America where you are innocent until proven guilty. The Bill of Rights has been eliminated. We no longer live in a nation where law enforcement must have an actual case….We live in Reagan’s America where you are all presumed guilty, where your assets are assumed to belong to Reagan’s government, and if taken will never be returned…”

  • Sky__Captain

    Despite all his whining posts attempting to deflect the blame away from his 0bamaMessiah, at no point does L’il Brucie deplore this immoral practice by the IRS.

    • Brucehenry

      And at no point does anyone here except me acknowledge that this immoral practice began under the Reagan administration and has been going on for over 3 decades. It was even worse until Congress reformed the law in 2000.

      I don’t know whether to use the tired “kool-aid” analogy or the tired three monkeys “see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil” one about you so-called “conservatives.” I don’t think you guys are “conservative” at all. I think you’re just haters. This thread captures it pretty well.

      You get all outraged about “Obama’s IRS” and this civil asset forfeiture business. When it is pointed out to you that it is not an invention of Obama’s but of Reagan’s, you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and just chant “Obamasux.” Utterly fucking predictable. Haters.

      • Hank_M

        Might not be an invention of Obama’s but according to the NY Times article,
        “the I.R.S., ….made 639 seizures in 2012, up from 114 in 2005.”

        As you point out, it was reformed in 2000, the reform led by Henry Hyde. The reform was suppose to make it more difficult to sieze property without evidence of wrongdoing.

        Looks like the IRS, and other agencies are ignoring that aspect of the law.

        Put that together with the IRS targetting of conservative groups and I tend to think the outrage is justified. And since Obama has been president for
        the last 6 years, he is ultimately responsible.

      • Jwb10001

        This practice began under the Reagan administration(happy now), sadly he can no longer effect the use of or abuse of it. Its up to Obama now. Any chance he’ll do anything about it?

        • Brucehenry

          Did Bush? Did Clinton? Did Bush 43? Where were your outraged blog posts then?

          • Jwb10001

            I didn’t know anything about it so I guess not Bruce, but if you’d like to fire up the time machine I’ll be happy to express my disapproval. Are you trying to tell us that we have to put up with this now because no one said anything about it before? Or are you just again bitching about hyprcocy like it only occurs on the right?

          • Brucehenry

            At least you acknowledge what it is.

          • Jwb10001

            Of course I do Bruce wrong is wrong. I’m perfectly happy to fill the federal pens with Republicans and Democrats.

      • Vagabond661

        you are not going to cry are you?

        You claim the Reagan Administration began this immoral practice. If you read what the law require there was specific guidelines. When did it jump the shark? Possibly with Lois Lerner?

        By the way, Lois Lerner is all over this:

        http://www.irs.gov/uac/Lois-G.-Lerner-Selected-as-Director-of-IRS-Exempt-Organizations-Division

        • Sky__Captain

          No, he’ll just acccuse you of being a “hater”.

        • Brucehenry

          What does the Lerner link signify?

          I don’t know when it jumped the shark. It has always, it seems to me, been unconstitutional. I damn sure ain’t defending it.

          Yet four presidents before Obama were in charge of the IRS while it engaged in this “immoral practice.” I didn’t see conservatives getting their knickers twisted and writing articles about how In “Reagan’s America,” or “Bush’s America,” your assets weren’t safe from jackbooted thugs. Did you?

      • Sky__Captain

        Wrong, you obnoxious and oblivious little twit.

        I did NOT state that I was “outraged”. I do acknowledge that I believe it is immoral regardless of who started the practice.

        However, at no point in your latest hateful diatribe do you actually deplore the actions of the IRS, so you must support it.

        Unfortunately, the anonymity of the internet protects little trolls like yourself from the proper rewards you deserve, given your hateful diatribe. What’s wrong, can’t you handle accurate criticism of your 0bamaMessiah? After all, he is President. He could pick up the phone and tell the IRS to stop anytime in the past 6 years.

        • Brucehenry

          Really? And be accused of “ignoring the law”?

          And lol, what “proper rewards” do I deserve, tough guy? I ain’t that anonymous. Anybody that reads this blog could find me if they tried. Anyone who wants to attempt to administer the “proper reward” I deserve is welcome to try.

          You seem to be the one getting upset. I’m just doing what I always do — pointing out the fact that rabblerousers rouse rabble.

          • Sky__Captain

            You’re wrong again, as usual., I’m not upset. I just called you out on your tacit approval of the IRS’ actions.

            A good old ass-whoopin’ is what you deserve. I’d settle for your permanent ban by the Wizbang moderators for your hateful rhetoric
            and baiting.

            After all, you just admitted ” I’m just doing what I always do — pointing out the fact that rabblerousers rouse rabble.”

            You don’t really want discussion and debate, you will lose. The moniker “L’il Brucie” fits you well – it refers to your small mind.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL You’re not upset — you just want to demonstrate your desire for discussion and debate by threatening other commenters with “ass-whoopin’s” (as if) and calls for their permanent banning.

            Nothing hateful in my rhetoric. The worst name I’ve called anyone here in this thread is “hater” and “rube.” But I’m not calling for YOUR ban because of your threats. After all, if only I wasn’t so anonymous, says the guy posting under the screen name “Sky Captain,” I could be administered the “proper reward” that I deserve — a good old ass-whoopin’. O Tay.

            I need clarification here, Captain. Is it SMALL minds that want to ban contradictory opinions, or is it clear courageous minds like yours?

          • Jwb10001

            Maybe he means you should be audited, that actually seems fitting to me lol.

  • Paul Hooson

    In most courts there is no charge to file a challenge to garnishment document. You just have to look up your state’s allowable deduction limits and file for a hearing In some cases, you are allowed to collect damages in a later proceeding if the garnishment of assets was illegal in addition to the value of any property lost.

    • Brucehenry

      Nobody’s talking about garnishment here Paul.

      • Sky__Captain

        I agree, it is not garnishment.

        It’s theft at the point of the government gun., otherwise known as robbery.

        And Bruce approves.

      • Paul Hooson

        No. This what tax actions like this usually fall under. Laws make it easy to impound funds in bank accounts by tax agencies filing a garnishment action, which has to meet much lower standards than private citizen garnishment actions. Warner did not cite the type of actions taken, but garnishment actions to impound funds are usually a first step by tax agencies, with other types of impounds of funds less commonly used.

  • 914

    Don’t keep your money assets in a bank and shoot to kill.