ALERT: IRS Seizes $100K From Small Business Owner, Refuses to Give It Back for Shocking Reason

 The infernal revenue stealers at the IRS have an insane amount of rules and regulations, all designed to criminalize ordinary American citizens, allowing the government to take their money.

One such onerous regulation is that regarding “structuring,” which relates to individuals making bank deposits of just under $10,000, the threshold at which banks are required to notify the government — a rule originally intended to catch drug dealers and mobsters.

Unfortunately, the owner of a small gas station and restaurant in rural North Carolina, Lyndon McClellan, ran afoul of the law, and the IRS seized $107,000 from his bank account under their civil asset forfeiture laws.

“It was like I was just slapped in the face with something. I didn’t know what was going on,” McLellan said. “You work for something for 13, 14 years, and they take it in 13, 14 minutes.”

Irs2

Sadly, in civil asset forfeiture cases, the burden of proof rests not with the prosecution, but with the defendant, who must somehow prove that their assets are unrelated to criminal activity, something both difficult and quite costly to do.

According to Opposing Views, the IRS is refusing to return McClellan’s money, even though they recently changed their rules regarding structuring, limiting its use to cases with clear cut examples of criminality, something sorely missing from McClellan’s case.

However, the rule change was not made retroactive, so they continue to hang on to his cash despite his protestations. In fact, they basically threatened McClellan and his lawyer, daring them to beat them in court if they wanted the money back.

Federal prosecutor Steve West wrote: “Your client needs to resolve this or litigate it. But publicity about it doesn’t help. It just ratchets up feelings in the agency.”

Some members of Congress, notably Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee, are working to do away with the IRS’s civil asset forfeiture law, or at least place major restrictions on it.

But their work remains incomplete and sadly lacks the support of a majority in Congress.

Related Posts: