• filter:

The IRS took millions from innocent people - Structuring??

  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
inspector general finds The IRS took millions from innocent people because of how they managed their bank accounts

  Washington Post story reports the Inspector General findings of IRS and other government inappropriate actions taking money from bank accounts without good cause and not investigating after to clear the cases.

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Please do define what you mean when you state, "obviously suspect names."
On second thought, don't waste our time because... (more)

bighitter (Apr. 09, 2017 @ 10:29p) |

Well, I don't just take money out, I put money back too.  I'd say I have >$8k cash deposits 15-20 times a year.  No, I w... (more)

ryoung81 (Apr. 11, 2017 @ 8:12a) |

Obviously suspect names are names that sound like they are political.

LorenPechtel (Apr. 11, 2017 @ 2:33p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
this is really egregious behavior by the government.
Article said: The IG took a random sample of 278 IRS forfeiture actions in cases where structuring was the primary basis for seizure. The report found that in 91 percent of those cases, the individuals and business had obtained their money legally.

More troubling, the report found that the pattern of seizures — targeting businesses that had obtained their money legally — was deliberate.

“One of the reasons why legal source cases were pursued was that the Department of Justice had encouraged task forces to engage in 'quick hits,' where property was more quickly seized and more quickly resolved through negotiation, rather than pursuing cases with other criminal activity (such as drug trafficking and money laundering), which are more time-consuming,” according to the news release.

“In most instances, we found no evidence that attempted to verify the property owners’ explanations,” according to the report.

rated:
Looters gonna loot

rated:
Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

rated:
There's been several threads on FWF in the past on these "civil forfeitures". Most of them around local police seizing cash from innocent people who happened to be carrying too much money, and then it being almost impossible to get back (and totally legal to do).

It's a bigger problem than you realize, because the people victimized don't have much way to fight back. If you are wealthy then you know it is going to cost you $50k+ in legal fees to fight them, and if you are not wealthy -- you are really SOL.

rated:
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  You know that Jeff Session is one of very few that defend Civil Forfeiture, right?
At a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on forfeiture abuses, one senator said “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” and neither is law enforcement enriching itself from this. In the manner of the man for whom he soon will work, this senator asserted an unverifiable number: “Ninety-five percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” This senator said it should not be more difficult for “government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.” In seizing property suspected of involvement in a crime, government “should not have a burden of proof higher than in a normal civil case.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-je...

rated:
I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post for running this news story as though it's brand-new news. Sometimes you have to reiterate things that are true, just to remind people that they're happening (or that they happened).

In this case, the IRS practice was halted after a May 2016 hearing at the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight on Financial Transaction Structuring (chaired by Peter Roskam, R-IL). See their testimony at https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/written-testimony-of-john-a-kos... .

The news in the Washington Post article is that an audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration finally finished -- they randomly examined 278 people of the 1,800 who had money seized because of transactions slightly under $10,000 and the IG office found that in their random sample, 91% of the people weren't committing any other crime. The IG's report (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2017-05.htm) points out that the practice ended and all those 1,800 people were told they could ask for their money back after Congressional hearings in 2016.

But good for the Post for writing up the whole thing as if it's brand new -- I really like it when media aren't afraid to present something that's not exactly "breaking news" but is an important topic for people to consider (or re-consider). It's like how a lot of the Snowden disclosures ("everyone is reading your e-mail all the time!") were not exactly news, and had been widely reported a few years prior, but were certainly interesting and worth reminding people about. Respect.

And credit where it's due to Congress here for "investigating the IRS" for something beyond the news-cycle's focus on 501(c)(4) "targeting".

rated:
Note that in some cases they seized the entire bank account because the structured transactions.... which means they could have seized much more than a little less than $10k in each case.

rated:
mherdegg said:   I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post for running this news story as though it's brand-new news. Sometimes you have to reiterate things that are true, just to remind people that they're happening (or that they happened).

In this case, the IRS practice was halted after a May 2016 hearing at the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight on Financial Transaction Structuring (chaired by Peter Roskam, R-IL). See their testimony at https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/written-testimony-of-john-a-koskinen-and-richard-weber-before-the-house-committee-on-ways-and-means-subcommittee-on-oversight-on-financial-transaction-structuring-may-25-2016 .

The news in the Washington Post article is that an audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration finally finished -- they randomly examined 278 people of the 1,800 who had money seized because of transactions slightly under $10,000 and the IG office found that in their random sample, 91% of the people weren't committing any other crime. The IG's report (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2017-05.htm) points out that the practice ended and all those 1,800 people were told they could ask for their money back after Congressional hearings in 2016.

But good for the Post for writing up the whole thing as if it's brand new -- I really like it when media aren't afraid to present something that's not exactly "breaking news" but is an important topic for people to consider (or re-consider). It's like how a lot of the Snowden disclosures ("everyone is reading your e-mail all the time!") were not exactly news, and had been widely reported a few years prior, but were certainly interesting and worth reminding people about. Respect.

And credit where it's due to Congress here for "investigating the IRS" for something beyond the news-cycle's focus on 501(c)(4) "targeting".

  Agree with everything you said except the "respect for Washington Post" part. A lot of media outlets have reported on this story (WaPo is not unique to do it), and it is "brand new" as the Inspection report was just released.

WaPo in general is biased garbage just as Fox News, CNN, HuffPo, and NY Times are for their agendas. Read The Economist if you want real, non-partisan journalism.

rated:
no word on the statistics for how many businesses went under due to the seizures?

I know many of them were small businesses like restaurants where they were depositing cash frequently to mitigate the potential risk of theft/loss. I can't imagine having a bank account seized is good for the cash flow in a small mom/pop business.

rated:
ArmchairArchitect said:   
mherdegg said:   I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post for running this news story as though it's brand-new news. Sometimes you have to reiterate things that are true, just to remind people that they're happening (or that they happened).

In this case, the IRS practice was halted after a May 2016 hearing at the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight on Financial Transaction Structuring (chaired by Peter Roskam, R-IL). See their testimony at https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/written-testimony-of-john-a-koskinen-and-richard-weber-before-the-house-committee-on-ways-and-means-subcommittee-on-oversight-on-financial-transaction-structuring-may-25-2016 .

The news in the Washington Post article is that an audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration finally finished -- they randomly examined 278 people of the 1,800 who had money seized because of transactions slightly under $10,000 and the IG office found that in their random sample, 91% of the people weren't committing any other crime. The IG's report (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/press/press_tigta-2017-05.htm) points out that the practice ended and all those 1,800 people were told they could ask for their money back after Congressional hearings in 2016.

But good for the Post for writing up the whole thing as if it's brand new -- I really like it when media aren't afraid to present something that's not exactly "breaking news" but is an important topic for people to consider (or re-consider). It's like how a lot of the Snowden disclosures ("everyone is reading your e-mail all the time!") were not exactly news, and had been widely reported a few years prior, but were certainly interesting and worth reminding people about. Respect.

And credit where it's due to Congress here for "investigating the IRS" for something beyond the news-cycle's focus on 501(c)(4) "targeting".

  Agree with everything you said except the "respect for Washington Post" part. A lot of media outlets have reported on this story (WaPo is not unique to do it), and it is "brand new" as the Inspection report was just released.

WaPo in general is biased garbage just as Fox News, CNN, HuffPo, and NY Times are for their agendas. Read The Economist if you want real, objective, center-right journalism.

  Fixed.

rated:
mherdegg said:   I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post...
You shouldn't.  Especially given the fact that many of those investigated were either unaware of the implications of their behavior or advised to engage in structuring by bank tellers or others, the Post would have served the public by at least getting the facts straight.  In the beginning of the article, they already begin to mislead with this statement:
Washington Post said: To combat criminal activity, individuals and businesses are required to report all bank deposits greater than $10,000 to federal authorities.

The banks do the reporting, not the individuals making the deposit.

The Post also fails to explore the underlying issue of how the IRS came to even know to investigate the individuals involved.  Banks had to have filed CTRs or SARs on the customers for the IRS to have even been aware of the behavior.  I'm not taking sides in the issue; just pointing out that this is not good investigative journalism.  The Washington Post has significantly deteriorated in recent years, in both the quality of the journalism and the degree of bias expressed throughout just about every article they publish.
 

rated:
ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short. I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.

rated:
Well, people are always been willing to point finger at news they don't like as biased. It's exceptional clear if anyone just bother to read a foreign news source and see how a story is presented in such different prospective.

The problem isn't the mainstream media, it's the consumers of news who often lives inside a ideological echo chamber and are unwilling to even entertain the thought that the "other side" might be right sometime.

rated:
meade18 said:   ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short. I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.
  It's probably to the right of center in Europe, but to the left of center in the U.S.

rated:
meade18 said:   ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short.
  I think the fact that some describe it as center-right and some describe it as center-left means they're pretty damn centrist and independent. At least much more so than any other mainstream media outlets.
meade18 said:   I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.
 
This is partly true; in most cases it's just people calling out the news outlets that don't agree with their "side" as biased, rather than also calling out the ones that support their viewpoints. Eg. most liberals will say Fox News is biased but then think that HuffPo or CNN is not. And most conservatives will think the exact opposite. I'm not sure how people are so delusional.

If you're truly aware, you realize almost all news outlets today have a bias/agenda problem, and true journalism and objectivity is scarce. I for one, can admit that news outlets on both sides are just as terribly biased as one another. Eg. CNN is just as bad as Fox News, just on opposite sides of the spectrum.

rated:
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/gop-calls-irs-com... 

Congress ’s top tax expert led Republicans Wednesday in demanding President Trump fire IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, saying the tax agency cannot be repaired as long as he’s at the helm.“Trust in the IRS is hitting rock-bottom,” the Republicans, led by Rep. Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a letter calling on Mr. Trump to take action. 

rated:
LOOPHOLE said:   
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/5/gop-calls-irs-com... 

Congress ’s top tax expert led Republicans Wednesday in demanding President Trump fire IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, saying the tax agency cannot be repaired as long as he’s at the helm.“Trust in the IRS is hitting rock-bottom,” the Republicans, led by Rep. Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a letter calling on Mr. Trump to take action. 

  
Thanks.  Yeah, Trump promised to drain the swamp, and Koskinen is one of the largest 'gators.  The guy is totally corrupt.  Trump's plate has been full, I'll give him that.  But he had better get a move on where the IRS is concerned, and its top dog . . er . . I mean 'gator.

rated:
xerty said:   this is really egregious behavior by the government.
Article said: The IG took a random sample of 278 IRS forfeiture actions in cases where structuring was the primary basis for seizure. The report found that in 91 percent of those cases, the individuals and business had obtained their money legally.

More troubling, the report found that the pattern of seizures — targeting businesses that had obtained their money legally — was deliberate.

“One of the reasons why legal source cases were pursued was that the Department of Justice had encouraged task forces to engage in 'quick hits,' where property was more quickly seized and more quickly resolved through negotiation, rather than pursuing cases with other criminal activity (such as drug trafficking and money laundering), which are more time-consuming,” according to the news release.

“In most instances, we found no evidence that attempted to verify the property owners’ explanations,” according to the report.


  Right, but those people may have gotten on IRS radar due to involvement in criminal activity.  

Say I were into scrap metals, drug trafficking and money laundering. Feds didn't want to open a case for either my drug trafficking or money laundering, since neither one was big enough to justify an expensive investigation.  Also, federal-sentencing guidelines were HARSH.  So cops believed that a 10-year prison sentence was excessive for my "2nd-tier" criminality.

That said, cops believed I deserve at least SOME punishment for my misdeeds.  

So what to do? Swipe some of my scrap-metal revenue, calling it a day.

When IG investigated my "asset forfeiture," I could show that my scrap-metal money was obtained legally.  Of course, I would "forget" to mention my involvement in other "side businesses."

rated:
limu3 said:   Say I were into scrap metals, drug trafficking and money laundering. Feds didn't want to open a case for either my drug trafficking or money laundering, since neither one was big enough to justify an expensive investigation.  Also, federal-sentencing guidelines were HARSH.  So cops believed that a 10-year prison sentence was excessive for my "2nd-tier" criminality.

That said, cops believed I deserve at least SOME punishment for my misdeeds.  

So what to do? Swipe some of my scrap-metal revenue, calling it a day.

@limu3, really? It is not cops' job to dispense punishment. It is illegal for them to do so. As simple as that. It's the courts' job to decide if you "deserve" some, and what the appropriate punishment is. Using the laws as they are, not as someone thinks they should be.
 

rated:
haha. Not to mention if you think for a second they wouldn't want to nail you for every charge and convict you for every possible day they could get then you have obviously never been involved in the legal system.
If you stole a candy bar and they could get a 20 year conviction, trust me, they would go for it.

rated:
dcwilbur said:   
mherdegg said:   I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post...
You shouldn't.  Especially given the fact that many of those investigated were either unaware of the implications of their behavior or advised to engage in structuring by bank tellers or others, the Post would have served the public by at least getting the facts straight.  In the beginning of the article, they already begin to mislead with this statement:
Washington Post said: To combat criminal activity, individuals and businesses are required to report all bank deposits greater than $10,000 to federal authorities.

The banks do the reporting, not the individuals making the deposit.

The Post also fails to explore the underlying issue of how the IRS came to even know to investigate the individuals involved.  Banks had to have filed CTRs or SARs on the customers for the IRS to have even been aware of the behavior.  I'm not taking sides in the issue; just pointing out that this is not good investigative journalism.  The Washington Post has significantly deteriorated in recent years, in both the quality of the journalism and the degree of bias expressed throughout just about every article they publish.

Why does your comment have ANY green??? Maybe the wording is a bit off, but yes Individuals are also required to report these types of transactions, when they receive funds.
[S=[S=https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/re... said: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/re...]https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/report-of-cash-payments-over-10000-received-in-a-trade-or-business-motor-vehicle-dealership-qas]Generally,[/S] any person in a trade or business who receives more than $10,000 in cash in a single transaction or related transactions must complete a Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business (PDF)
And another fault you say is "Banks had to have filed CTRs or SARs on the customers for the IRS to have even been aware of the behavior" well... yeah, that is the whole 'reporting' thing they mentioned in the beginning. Banks will report this to IRS using a CTR or SAR... WP just didn't mention the name of these reports. I fail to see how this is significant.

rated:
jsssm said:   
dcwilbur said:   
mherdegg said:   I have a lot of respect for the Washington Post...
You shouldn't.  Especially given the fact that many of those investigated were either unaware of the implications of their behavior or advised to engage in structuring by bank tellers or others, the Post would have served the public by at least getting the facts straight.  In the beginning of the article, they already begin to mislead with this statement:
Washington Post said: To combat criminal activity, individuals and businesses are required to report all bank deposits greater than $10,000 to federal authorities.

The banks do the reporting, not the individuals making the deposit.

The Post also fails to explore the underlying issue of how the IRS came to even know to investigate the individuals involved.  Banks had to have filed CTRs or SARs on the customers for the IRS to have even been aware of the behavior.  I'm not taking sides in the issue; just pointing out that this is not good investigative journalism.  The Washington Post has significantly deteriorated in recent years, in both the quality of the journalism and the degree of bias expressed throughout just about every article they publish.

Why does your comment have ANY green??? Maybe the wording is a bit off, but yes Individuals are also required to report these types of transactions, when they receive funds.
[S=[S=[S=https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/re... said: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/re...]https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/re...]https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/report-of-cash-payments-over-10000-received-in-a-trade-or-business-motor-vehicle-dealership-qas]Generally,[/S] any person in a trade or business who receives more than $10,000 in cash in a single transaction or related transactions must complete a Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business (PDF)
And another fault you say is "Banks had to have filed CTRs or SARs on the customers for the IRS to have even been aware of the behavior" well... yeah, that is the whole 'reporting' thing they mentioned in the beginning. Banks will report this to IRS using a CTR or SAR... WP just didn't mention the name of these reports. I fail to see how this is significant.

Well, on your first point, this investigation focused entirely on banking - not self-employed, or auto dealers, or airplane dealers, or any other business that yes, is also required to file CTRs.  So in the context of the investigation - and the Washington Post article - the statement that " individuals and businesses (implying the business customer making the deposit) are required to report all bank deposits" is absolutely incorrect.

On your second point, it certainly is relevant and significant in that if SARs and CTRs were filed, then some behavior by the customer was already of enough interest to have attracted the attention of the bank.  In other words, and as some other posters above have already commented, at least some of these "innocents" were up to something.    

rated:
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  Let's hope so. The IRS has been out of control for some time.  Obama and his administration should have, but didn't,  pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner for using her position at the IRS to Target political conservatives.   Instead Ms. Lerner and the IRS claimed emails were lost or destroyed and Ms. Lerner was allowed to quietly retire with her full government pension intact.

rated:
meade18 said:   ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short. I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.
  Agreed.  

rated:
Theft is taxation.

rated:
For someone having their money confiscated by the IRS it makes no difference to them if it's taken through forfeiture or taxation.

rated:
brettdoyle said:   For someone having their money confiscated by the IRS it makes no difference to them if it's taken through forfeiture or taxation.
  Sure, you can complain about 'Forfeiture' and get news people interested, you can't get anyone interested if it is just taxes.

rated:
There are three key points here to understand this situation:

1) Structuring (the basis for these seizures) is a crime itself. The intent may be to catch money laundering, but the way it is written money laundering doesn't have to be proven to seize cash.
2) The IRS has been critically underfunded for years and is struggling to come up with ways to handle tax law that only gets more complex with time.
3) Per the article, The Department of Justice "encouraged task forces to engage in 'quick hits,' where property was more quickly seized and more quickly resolved through negotiation"

I'm not saying the IRS is blameless here (far from it) but they are responding in a predictable way given their situation. If we want to stop this from happening, we need to look for solutions that are more than just punitive to the IRS. We need to also change the law around structuring, assign resources to do more thorough investigations, and change the guidance from the Department of Justice to focus on actual crimes instead of easy ways to bring in money.

That said, we'll probably just fire the head of the IRS, cut their funding, and then skip all that difficult policy stuff. Problem solved until the next election cycle!

rated:
My takeaway from all of this.... I'd like to think I'm pretty educated on these types of things, and I know all about SAR/CTR -- but I never knew I had any obligation to report large currency transactions over $10k, or close to $10k. Hell I should be filling these damn things out like, all the time apparently. I regularly go get cash to go to Vegas, buy a vehicle cash, or put it in my safe deposit box to hide from the wife (not the government). Like another poster said, nowadays, $10k just isn't that much money. God forbid I was in a cash heavy business. That being said, I've also never had any trouble for those transactions. Probably just lucky, but the point is -- hell no I had no clue I was supposed to be filling out paperwork for going about my daily life with my own money.

rated:
meade18 said:   ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short. I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.
The Economist would have been considered center-right in the US as recently as 15 years ago. The right in the US moved further right since then, however. So, while the Economist's views have not changed much, it certainly might be considered center-left in the US now.

By the way, I think the Economist is excellent and it is one of the few news sources I pay for.

rated:
ryoung81 said:   My takeaway from all of this.... I'd like to think I'm pretty educated on these types of things, and I know all about SAR/CTR -- but I never knew I had any obligation to report large currency transactions over $10k, or close to $10k. Hell I should be filling these damn things out like, all the time apparently. I regularly go get cash to go to Vegas, buy a vehicle cash, or put it in my safe deposit box to hide from the wife (not the government). Like another poster said, nowadays, $10k just isn't that much money. God forbid I was in a cash heavy business. That being said, I've also never had any trouble for those transactions. Probably just lucky, but the point is -- hell no I had no clue I was supposed to be filling out paperwork for going about my daily life with my own money.
  

Your'e just taking money out of the bank.    The bank would report it.   Not you.    But don't take $9k out frequently.... that will look suspiciously like avoiding the reporting for >10k amounts.

If someone paid you $10,000 for business transaction then you may have to report that.     But simply taking money out of your bank sin't reported by you.

 

rated:
lol

rated:
BostonOne said:   
meade18 said:   ArmchairArchitect says the Economist is non-partisan. BostonOne says it's center right. I've seen several news-bias infographics that put it center-left. It really depends on who you're talking to. You just have to get your news from multiple sources all over the political spectrum these days to even come close to getting the full story. And even then, they still often fall short. I'm just happy we're finally at a point where people on both sides are willing to admit that mainstream news isn't free from bias.
The Economist would have been considered center-right in the US as recently as 15 years ago. The right in the US moved further right since then, however. So, while the Economist's views have not changed much, it certainly might be considered center-left in the US now.

By the way, I think the Economist is excellent and it is one of the few news sources I pay for.

BostonOne, I find your statement that the right has moved further right intriguing.  I think the opposite has actually happened.  In my opinion the majority of those who used to be considered "right leaning" actually seem to be moving more toward the center.  At the same time, the left appears to be moving much further to the left.

As a quick point of reference, take a look at this 2005 UCLA study.  http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664 

Here is an excerpt, and again, it is important to keep in mind that this was over a decade ago:

"Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

I would be interested to hear your thoughts after you read the article I linked.

rated:
bighitter said:   
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  Let's hope so. The IRS has been out of control for some time.  Obama and his administration should have, but didn't,  pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner for using her position at the IRS to Target political conservatives.   Instead Ms. Lerner and the IRS claimed emails were lost or destroyed and Ms. Lerner was allowed to quietly retire with her full government pension intact.

  
The "red" I received for my comment above, which of course came from a few FWer's who typically advocate for bigger government and the Obama administration, caused me to investigate tonight what has transpired since the Lois Lerner targeting was first announced.  

Good news:  There appears some justice might be forthcoming for the victims of the IRS/Lois Lerner abuse.   http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/federal-judge-lawsuit-against-irs-targeting-conservative-groups 

Excerpt from the above article:  "The IRS and/or its agents targeted the dissenting groups for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing pervasively into their members’ associations, speech, activities, and beliefs,” the lawsuit charged.“Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government… brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”The result was “a chilling and muzzling of free speech and association,” the lawsuit continued. 

Let me be clear -- if this targeting had happened (or does happen) to liberals, I would be equally outraged.  If you think it wasn't a problem because the targets were conservatives, stop and consider the consequences now that the Dems are no longer in power.

rated:
bighitter said:   
bighitter said:   
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  Let's hope so. The IRS has been out of control for some time.  Obama and his administration should have, but didn't,  pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner for using her position at the IRS to Target political conservatives.   Instead Ms. Lerner and the IRS claimed emails were lost or destroyed and Ms. Lerner was allowed to quietly retire with her full government pension intact.

  
The "red" I received for my comment above, which of course came from a few FWer's who typically advocate for bigger government and the Obama administration, caused me to investigate tonight what has transpired since the Lois Lerner targeting was first announced.  

Good news:  There appears some justice might be forthcoming for the victims of the IRS/Lois Lerner abuse.   http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/federal-judge-lawsuit-against-irs-targeting-conservative-groups 

Excerpt from the above article:  "The IRS and/or its agents targeted the dissenting groups for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing pervasively into their members’ associations, speech, activities, and beliefs,” the lawsuit charged.“Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government… brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”The result was “a chilling and muzzling of free speech and association,” the lawsuit continued. 

Let me be clear -- if this targeting had happened (or does happen) to liberals, I would be equally outraged.  If you think it wasn't a problem because the targets were conservatives, stop and consider the consequences now that the Dems are no longer in power.

  
You got red because you are listening to the alt-news rather than reality.

And the IRS wasn't targeting conservatives, it's just there were a lot more groups on the right that has obviously suspect names.

rated:
LorenPechtel said:   
bighitter said:   
bighitter said:   
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  Let's hope so. The IRS has been out of control for some time.  Obama and his administration should have, but didn't,  pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner for using her position at the IRS to Target political conservatives.   Instead Ms. Lerner and the IRS claimed emails were lost or destroyed and Ms. Lerner was allowed to quietly retire with her full government pension intact.

  
The "red" I received for my comment above, which of course came from a few FWer's who typically advocate for bigger government and the Obama administration, caused me to investigate tonight what has transpired since the Lois Lerner targeting was first announced.  

Good news:  There appears some justice might be forthcoming for the victims of the IRS/Lois Lerner abuse.   http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/federal-judge-lawsuit-against-irs-targeting-conservative-groups 

Excerpt from the above article:  "The IRS and/or its agents targeted the dissenting groups for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing pervasively into their members’ associations, speech, activities, and beliefs,” the lawsuit charged.“Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government… brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”The result was “a chilling and muzzling of free speech and association,” the lawsuit continued. 

Let me be clear -- if this targeting had happened (or does happen) to liberals, I would be equally outraged.  If you think it wasn't a problem because the targets were conservatives, stop and consider the consequences now that the Dems are no longer in power.

  
(1) You got red because you are listening to the alt-news rather than reality.

(2) And the IRS wasn't targeting conservatives, it's just there were a lot more groups on the right that has obviously suspect names.

Please do define what you mean when you state, "obviously suspect names."
On second thought, don't waste our time because both your #1 and #2 comments already reveal that you are woefully uninformed and blinded by your bias.

rated:
jerosen said:   
ryoung81 said:   My takeaway from all of this.... I'd like to think I'm pretty educated on these types of things, and I know all about SAR/CTR -- but I never knew I had any obligation to report large currency transactions over $10k, or close to $10k. Hell I should be filling these damn things out like, all the time apparently. I regularly go get cash to go to Vegas, buy a vehicle cash, or put it in my safe deposit box to hide from the wife (not the government). Like another poster said, nowadays, $10k just isn't that much money. God forbid I was in a cash heavy business. That being said, I've also never had any trouble for those transactions. Probably just lucky, but the point is -- hell no I had no clue I was supposed to be filling out paperwork for going about my daily life with my own money.
  

Your'e just taking money out of the bank.    The bank would report it.   Not you.    But don't take $9k out frequently.... that will look suspiciously like avoiding the reporting for >10k amounts.

If someone paid you $10,000 for business transaction then you may have to report that.     But simply taking money out of your bank sin't reported by you.

 

  
Well, I don't just take money out, I put money back too.  I'd say I have >$8k cash deposits 15-20 times a year.  No, I won't tell any of you where I live, lol

rated:
bighitter said:   
LorenPechtel said:   
bighitter said:   
bighitter said:   
shinobi1 said:   Two words:

John Koskinen

Did Trump replace this criminal yet?  If not, it had better be very soon.

  Let's hope so. The IRS has been out of control for some time.  Obama and his administration should have, but didn't,  pursue prosecution of Lois Lerner for using her position at the IRS to Target political conservatives.   Instead Ms. Lerner and the IRS claimed emails were lost or destroyed and Ms. Lerner was allowed to quietly retire with her full government pension intact.

  
The "red" I received for my comment above, which of course came from a few FWer's who typically advocate for bigger government and the Obama administration, caused me to investigate tonight what has transpired since the Lois Lerner targeting was first announced.  

Good news:  There appears some justice might be forthcoming for the victims of the IRS/Lois Lerner abuse.   http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/federal-judge-lawsuit-against-irs-targeting-conservative-groups 

Excerpt from the above article:  "The IRS and/or its agents targeted the dissenting groups for intensive and intrusive scrutiny, probing pervasively into their members’ associations, speech, activities, and beliefs,” the lawsuit charged.“Elements within the Executive Branch of the federal government… brought the vast powers, incomprehensible complexity, and crushing bureaucracy of the IRS to bear on groups of citizens whose only wrongdoing was their presumed dissent from the policies or ideology of the Administration. In other words, these citizens were targeted based upon their political viewpoints.”The result was “a chilling and muzzling of free speech and association,” the lawsuit continued. 

Let me be clear -- if this targeting had happened (or does happen) to liberals, I would be equally outraged.  If you think it wasn't a problem because the targets were conservatives, stop and consider the consequences now that the Dems are no longer in power.

  
(1) You got red because you are listening to the alt-news rather than reality.

(2) And the IRS wasn't targeting conservatives, it's just there were a lot more groups on the right that has obviously suspect names.

Please do define what you mean when you state, "obviously suspect names."
On second thought, don't waste our time because both your #1 and #2 comments already reveal that you are woefully uninformed and blinded by your bias.

  
Obviously suspect names are names that sound like they are political.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017