If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Feds seize $35K from Michigan business, because a massive central government acting on whims is essential to prevent us from turning into Somalia, which is the obvious end result of all libertarian policy (Book of Krugman, Chapter 1, Verses 2-13)   (reason.com) divider line 123
    More: Interesting, Somalia, Michigan, central government, civil forfeiture, Institute for Justice, Shelby County, insurance policy, feds  
•       •       •

1985 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2013 at 9:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



123 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-26 09:54:17 AM  

lockers: This didn't happen the way they said it happened. There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events. Most likely these people weren't paying taxes and are now acting astonished that the government won't put up with it. By all means, though, uphold these sovereign citizens as victims.


Worked during the IRS "scandal." No matter the actual circumstances, regardless of who's affected, conservatives are always the biggest victims of EVERYTHING.
 
2013-09-26 09:54:40 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: Last year, Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini called the practice "state sanctioned theft"

Oh man...the Fark Dependents® aren't going to like that one bit.


Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought? I don't know.

Oh, and subby? Your headline should be taken out back and put down. It's the compassionate thing to do.
 
2013-09-26 09:55:14 AM  

lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.


WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).
 
2013-09-26 09:55:29 AM  

phaseolus: You realize that almost every post in this thread contradicts your point, don't you?


Yeah, I posted that before everyone else chimed in and I must say that I am pleasantly surprised to see that most everyone is finally coming around. It was only a matter of time.

skozlaw: Hi, submitter.


Not mine. I don't get the Krugman angle either. I do kind of like the Somalia bit though.
 
2013-09-26 09:56:27 AM  

BMulligan: Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought?


People accustomed to living mouth-to-tit from their parents often have a difficult time accomplishing anything for themselves.
 
2013-09-26 09:58:35 AM  

skozlaw: So... yea... good job, I guess. Hope your lame attempt at trolling was worth all the people you'll turn off of the subject who might have otherwise agreed with you.


Srsly. Between the lame trolling headline (Krugman? Wtf?) and the poorly written actual story (Obama was president in 2003?) the submitter effectively undermines interest in what could be an actual ... thing.

By the way, you can follow Reason's link maize to the actual GAO report on assets forfeiture. If I'm reading one of their tables right, AFF's revenue jumped way up in 2006 and 2007.

/no idea what AFF stands for
//assume it's Asset Forfeiture something
 
2013-09-26 09:59:41 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: finally coming around


Yea, that's what it is. It's not that you're just full of bullshiat and like to rail aimlessly at what you imagine "LIBS" believe in every thread, it's that people are "finally coming around" after all these years of loving the IRS. Because if there's one thing Americans of all stripes have always loved, it's the taxman.

The fark is wrong with you, anyway? Were you conceived in the middle of a superfund site or something?
 
2013-09-26 10:00:14 AM  

EyeballKid: BMulligan: Why are conservatives so completely devoid of creativity? Why are most of their attempts at humor amount to little more than awkward plagiarism? It's sad, and a little frightening - how does someone make it through life, handicapped in this manner? Why would anyone even want to keep living when they are utterly unable to incubate a single original thought?

People accustomed to living mouth-to-tit from their parents often have a difficult time accomplishing anything for themselves.


Thanks for not mentioning my mangled sentence structure.
 
2013-09-26 10:04:25 AM  

skozlaw: Yea, that's what it is. It's not that you're just full of bullshiat and like to rail aimlessly at what you imagine "LIBS" believe in every thread, it's that people are "finally coming around" after all these years of loving the IRS. Because if there's one thing Americans of all stripes have always loved, it's the taxman.


You must be new here.

Account created: 2013-03-06 09:34:52

Yup.

skozlaw: The fark is wrong with you, anyway? Were you conceived in the middle of a superfund site or something?


Weak, son...weak.
 
2013-09-26 10:04:52 AM  
Reason? I wonder what actually happened.
 
2013-09-26 10:09:59 AM  

t3knomanser: lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.

WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


No, no, no! These Patriotstm Did nothing wrong and obviously the central government acted capriciously. Any Reason other than a wild act of fascism can be discounted. Fartbongo should be ashamed of his actions.
 
2013-09-26 10:12:42 AM  
Here's a link from a local paper.  It doesn't really add any new details, but it is at least not tainted by being on reason.com.
 
2013-09-26 10:15:12 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You must be new here.


Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?

You're a pathetic joke and everyone knows it. Nobody's coming around to anything, you just live in your own stupid little world where you convenience yourself that other people MUST believe whatever dumbass thing you heard on AM talk radio this morning and it astonishes you when something like this peels away your bubble and shines a little light on it.

Virtually nobody supports asset seizure without due process. You're not some brilliant mystic who's leading us from the dark on this, you're just an indolent twat who refuses to live in the real world.
 
2013-09-26 10:19:27 AM  

t3knomanser: lockers: There is more to this story and Reason is purposely giving a biased slant of events.

WHAT? That never happens!

Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


This.

Although we don't know how the business is set up. If they were set up as partnership than the K-1s would show the income. Set up as a C-corp wouldn't be a problem. If they are stupid they probably have set up as an S-corp family business and think that money is their own and doesn't belong to the business. If they started shifting cash deposits between personal and business accounts kind of a red flag for the IRS and the FBI if they thought there was laundering going on.
 
2013-09-26 10:20:09 AM  

t3knomanser: Reading a few other sources, it looks like their accounting process was sloppy. The IRS got suspicious, and sent auditors. The auditors didn't find anything actionable at the time, and went home. Nine months later, someone reviewed the case, decided that it was in fact actionable, and acted (or, something novel happened in those nine months that was actionable).


In other news, demonstrably dodgy financial transactions are okay if you're Eliot Spitzer - but if you're a grocery store in Michigan the IRS will have its claws out regardless of whether you did anything wrong.
 
2013-09-26 10:20:31 AM  
We tried going the libertarian road early this century.

It didn't work out so great. Things like workers dieing in factory fires, people selling poisons as medicine, fake doctors roaming the land, and auto and oil companies buying up competing products simply to push their products (i.e. standard oil's monopoly and GM killing the street car).

Libertarians worship the false god of the "free market" with a fervor that would make a radical Shia feel embarrassed.
 
P0e
2013-09-26 10:21:46 AM  
I'm quoting a quote from the article, but the Dehkos institute, which is defending the grocer is absolutely WRONG in its understanding of the relevant law.
FTA:
Federal law requires banks to report cash transactions above $10,000, and it is illegal to "structure" cash deposits for the purpose of avoiding this requirement.
The actual law:
Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to ...file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.

If you make over 10k in transations in a day to someone you HAVE to report it.  They are a successful business, and if they deposit more than 10k, they should report it.  Their financial institution should be able to help them do that.

This law is in place because people were hiding illegal large-value transactions by splitting up the transfers of money into a number of smaller purchases.  Eliot Spitzer, while Attorney General of New York, actually used this statue to crack down on prostitution and other white-collar crime (which he later got caught for himself).

According to the TFA, they were visited TWICE before the penalty was handed down.  They were told they were violating the law, and they ignored it.  The solution is not to change how they do their business, or change how they handle their money, but simply to REPORT these transactions.  The letter from the FBI stated that an investigation into their funds found no illegal activity regarding the money, but that does not change the fact that they were breaking the law by not reporting their money.  I'm sure they're all riled up over the idea of sticking it to the government, but this is not a case of the government coming in and taking things without just cause.
 
2013-09-26 10:22:00 AM  
So, Paul Krugman started the War on Drugs?  Because that's what this is, it's the war on drugs.

The victims deal in cash, they deposit the same way drug dealers and money launderers do (well, did) and they get caught in the "must catch drug dealers!!!11one" net like a sea turtle out for a swim.

But no, this is somehow BOB's fault, whoever the fark he is.
 
2013-09-26 10:26:34 AM  

skozlaw: Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?


It's glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue in the world what I am referencing. Perhaps you should lurk one or two more times before posting.
 
2013-09-26 10:27:39 AM  
Seems to me the grocer guy and his daughter did not file Form 8300 as they were told to do.

I know some Farkers are going to attempt to turn this into some kind of attack on personal freedom, but when you run a small business you know there are things required. You need to file a tax return, you need to report wages paid, and so forth. Form 8300 is just one of those things businesses need to file.

IRS rule
The form itself is simple and it can be filed electronically. Apparently this business did not.
 
2013-09-26 10:36:21 AM  

Gulper Eel: In other news, demonstrably dodgy financial transactions are okay if you're Eliot Spitzer - but if you're a grocery store in Michigan the IRS will have its claws out regardless of whether you did anything wrong.


If by "are okay", you mean "lead to an investigation that ends your governorship", then sure.
 
2013-09-26 10:39:46 AM  
Doesn't sound quite as bad as the CEO of Gibson claiming persecution for his political beliefs when law enforcement enforced the laws he was breaking.
 
2013-09-26 10:41:24 AM  

Delay: Seems to me the grocer guy and his daughter did not file Form 8300 as they were told to do.

I know some Farkers are going to attempt to turn this into some kind of attack on personal freedom, but when you run a small business you know there are things required. You need to file a tax return, you need to report wages paid, and so forth. Form 8300 is just one of those things businesses need to file.

IRS rule
The form itself is simple and it can be filed electronically. Apparently this business did not.


If they had a decent accountant they would have known that; however, accountants impede freedoms much like terrorists.
 
2013-09-26 10:48:03 AM  

wotthefark: If they had a decent accountant they would have known that; however, accountants impede freedoms much like terrorists.


Heh. Not our accountant. She's a nice older woman who lives in the neighborhood. She comes in twice a month for about an hour and does some tasks using our accounting software while telling me stories about her dog. I could not imagine anyone less damaging to my freedoms.
 
2013-09-26 10:58:48 AM  

phaseolus: Dancin_In_Anson: TFA: Last year, Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini called the practice "state sanctioned theft"

Oh man...the Fark Dependents® aren't going to like that one bit.


You realize that almost every post in this thread contradicts your point, don't you?


What do the people in the thread have to do with anything? D_I_A is in a constant war with the "liberals" in his head. What's going on in reality matters not to his delusional internal struggle.
 
2013-09-26 11:02:55 AM  
I liked the seizes and whims, but I'm going to deduct half a point for the lack of jackboots.

The Krugman was a nice touch, but I would have gone with Saul Alinsky tactics.
 
2013-09-26 11:05:16 AM  

thurstonxhowell: If by "are okay", you mean "lead to an investigation that ends your governorship", then sure.


Because having a nine-figure nest egg, dad's real-estate empire, and instant cable-news job offers to fall back on is exactly the same situation the Michigan grocers are in.
 
2013-09-26 11:08:02 AM  

someonelse: I'm sorry, Reason, but when your story misspells 'bank,' can't spell the family's name consistently, and only links to your own stories as sources, I'm going to remain a bit dubious.


Reason really went to shiat when they caught the "OBAMA DERANGEMENT SYNDROME" sometime in 2009. I liked them before but christ on a crutch they've become bad.
 
2013-09-26 11:13:47 AM  

ginandbacon: They were laundering money. That's not okay and $35k is hardly something to go all Teaparty-overthrow-the-government on. Get a grip idiots.


Meanwhile multibillion dollar banks launder drug money and the Feds refuse to do anything
 
2013-09-26 11:30:02 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: skozlaw: Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?

It's glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue in the world what I am referencing. Perhaps you should lurk one or two more times before posting.



I agree with everything skozlaw posted.  He has you totally pegged.

And I don't think you have to check my account age.
 
2013-09-26 11:30:04 AM  
Does Fark yet have a word for threads where the headline seems like obvious bullshiat that wouldn't be read if it didn't have a click-bait headline, and you don't want to reward the source with a click-through, so you just go into the thread comments to see *how* it was bullshiat from all the other Farkers?
 
2013-09-26 11:30:06 AM  
But, once Fraser gets its own "Emergency Manager" which shuts down Schott's Market in the name of "fiscal restructuring", everyone will think it's just dandy.  That is, everyone who knows about it.
 
2013-09-26 11:31:01 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Does Fark yet have a word for threads where the headline seems like obvious bullshiat that wouldn't be read if it didn't have a click-bait headline, and you don't want to reward the source with a click-through, so you just go into the thread comments to see *how* it was bullshiat from all the other Farkers?


Yes.  They are called "threads".
 
2013-09-26 11:33:02 AM  

Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.


YEA! Here. Have a cookie.
 
2013-09-26 11:37:27 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.

YEA! Here. Have a cookie.


Exceedingly lame.  Even for you.

You should maybe try an alt or something.

The DiA shtick has become tired and boring.
 
2013-09-26 11:41:30 AM  
Banks are required to report deposits of $10k and over.  Making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will not get you out the requirement.  In fact, as seen here, trying to game the system by making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will get you extra scrutiny.

I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place, funneling money to Hezbollah and other militant groups (look up the chain LaShish) so this probably drew extra scrutiny for that reason.
 
2013-09-26 11:44:14 AM  

t3knomanser: Marcus Aurelius: It's a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Of course the present crop of Extremes don't see it that way.

It  isn't a clear violation. Asset forfeiture is not without due process. The challenge is that forfeiture  puts the assets themselves on trial in a civil proceeding. Since assets do not have any constitutional protections of their own, and since the proceeding is civil in nature, there is a significantly reduced standard of evidence required. It's a bizarre approach, certainly, but it's not unusual for courts to place non-human actors on trial.


So why can't my money afford a lawyer?  And why is it assumed guilty until proven innocent?

As for "due process", asset forfeiture works like this:

1. Cops steal your money.
2. Cops keep your money and split it up with their cronies.
3. You pay a lawyer $10k to fail to get your money back.

If the Founding Fathers had even dreamed that the cops could steal your money in the future, they'd have made the Fourth Amendment a little more specific.
 
2013-09-26 11:46:16 AM  

please: Banks are required to report deposits of $10k and over.  Making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will not get you out the requirement.  In fact, as seen here, trying to game the system by making multiple deposits for $9,999.99 will get you extra scrutiny.

I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place, funneling money to Hezbollah and other militant groups (look up the chain LaShish) so this probably drew extra scrutiny for that reason.


The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.
 
2013-09-26 11:47:48 AM  

minoridiot: The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.


Splitting your deposits up to keep them under $10k is explicitly against Federal law, because our Congressmen went full retard on the War on Drugs.
 
2013-09-26 11:52:02 AM  

Tor_Eckman: Dancin_In_Anson: skozlaw: Maybe you should ask yourself why you're so easy to peg by somebody who hasn't been on Fark that long?

It's glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue in the world what I am referencing. Perhaps you should lurk one or two more times before posting.


I agree with everything skozlaw posted.  He has you totally pegged.

And I don't think you have to check my account age.


Yah I'm gonna have to agree with skozlaw too he's pretty awesome in fact I hope he stays around.
 
2013-09-26 12:01:19 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Dancin_In_Anson: Tor_Eckman: I agree with everything skozlaw posted.

YEA! Here. Have a cookie.

Exceedingly lame.  Even for you.

You should maybe try an alt or something.

The DiA shtick has become tired and boring.


This isn't true. It hasn't become tired and boring; it was tired and boring ab initio.
 
2013-09-26 12:01:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: minoridiot: The reason they made the smaller deposits was due to insurance company not covering employee thief over $10K.

Splitting your deposits up to keep them under $10k is explicitly against Federal law, because our Congressmen went full retard on the War on Drugs.


Publication 1544 and the subsequent Form 8300 is there to protect us from the Wars on: drugs, terror, crime, the internet, drunk driving, morality, violence, teen pregnancy, cancer, culture, Christmas, gangs, Women and Porn.

It was the war on terror and the Patriot Act that requires the form though. Before it was just RICO laws and THEN they went full retard.
 
2013-09-26 12:02:26 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Splitting your deposits up to keep them under $10k is explicitly against Federal law, because our Congressmen went full retard on the War on Drugs.


Then the feds should be hassling the insurance company for imposing the sub-$10K requirement and not bothering the grocers - except it's more likely that the insurance company has bought itself some friends in Washington.
 
2013-09-26 12:03:53 PM  
I have full confidence that Reason provided all the details of the story and that there's nothing else going on for this purely random grab for money - or probably they donated to Romney. But surely, nothing suspicious was left out of the story. That never happens.
 
2013-09-26 12:05:26 PM  

Wellon Dowd: On its face that seems wrong. I'd be interested in hearing the entire story.

Thank Saint Reagan and his Holy War on Drugs for making civil forfeiture an acceptable law enforcement tool.


Started with Nixon and has only gotten worse from there.
 
2013-09-26 12:07:42 PM  

please: I'll also point out that there is a history of middle-east-owned businesses in the metro-Detroit area, where this takes place


Racial profiling is okay when the IRS does it.
 
2013-09-26 12:11:24 PM  
Funny because the Republicans in Michigan are the ones who essentially had a dictator take over Detroit.  Who then decided to cut people's power off with no warning.

It's not authoritarian when we do it and all that.

Yes I know two wrongs don't make a right, just saying.
 
2013-09-26 12:11:53 PM  

vygramul: I have full confidence that Reason provided all the details of the story and that there's nothing else going on for this purely random grab for money - or probably they donated to Romney. But surely, nothing suspicious was left out of the story. That never happens.


Detroit Free Press.

According to the court filings, the IRS claims Dehko skirted rules that deposits greater than $10,000 be reported by making many smaller deposits. Larry Salzman, an attorney with the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice, which is working on Dehko's behalf, said the deposits were often in the $9,000 range, but that Dehko made regular deposits in those amounts because his insurance policy will not cover him for loss or theft of more than $10,000 in cash in the store.

Dehko said a federal agent came to his store in January and told him his funds were being seized, and Dehko has been fighting ever since. Dehko noted that the government offered to settle with him, but the offer was for 20% of what was seized, so he rejected it. The court filings note that the IRS had found no violations during an audit of Dehko's books in April 2012.

An IRS spokesman did not respond to a request for comment, and a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, also named as a defendant, said the only comment would come through court filings.


The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute, much as farxists would like to shout otherwise.
 
2013-09-26 12:15:17 PM  
I don't ever do this but I'm going to bookmark this thread.
 
2013-09-26 12:16:48 PM  

Gulper Eel: Marcus Aurelius: Splitting your deposits up to keep them under $10k is explicitly against Federal law, because our Congressmen went full retard on the War on Drugs.

Then the feds should be hassling the insurance company for imposing the sub-$10K requirement and not bothering the grocers - except it's more likely that the insurance company has bought itself some friends in Washington.


McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 Basically states insurance companies can do whatever the fark they want to in a state.

They are not subject to the commerce clause. The insurance company isn't liable for federal deposit requirements, thus it's the owners responsibility for not paying more in premiums for insurance to cover more than $10000 in cash.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report