Quatloos!

George Will's column today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z5

"The IRS used “civil forfeiture,” the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved with, crime. The IRS could have dispelled its suspicions of Terry and Sandy, if it actually had any, by simply asking them about the reasons — prudence, and the insurance limit — for their banking practices. It had, however, a reason not to ask obvious questions before proceeding.

The civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law — is an incentive for perverse behavior: Predatory government agencies get to pocket the proceeds from property they seize from Americans without even charging them with, let alone convicting them of, crimes. Criminals are treated better than this because they lose the fruits of their criminality only after being convicted."

Here's an article with a little more detail, but nothing that explains the IRS side of things:

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-art ... k-accounts

I see that the federal forfeiture statutes appear to be at Chapter 46 of Title 18 of the United States Code (sections 981 through 987), with the federal civil forfeiture statutes in particular being primarily sections 981, 983, 984 and 985.

Not an area of expertise for me.

The IRS has other tools it can use to take money quickly to satisfy tax debts if it has reason to fear that the money is going to suddenly disappear - jeopardy assessment and levy for example. Civil forfeitures are mostly used in money laundering or drug cases and the IRS will be only one of the government players involved.

Jack Townsend, formerly a trial attorney in the DOJ Tax Division, who is now in private practice and who is an adjunct professor teaching federal criminal tax law at the University of Houston Law Center, has a take on the story:

http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/20 ... =BP_recent