5 ms·
This makes sense. If the IRS had concluded a taxpayer owed a tax debt, and had to give notice every time it summonsed an entity for information in order to trac
by YPPH 3y ago
This makes sense. If the IRS had concluded a taxpayer owed a tax debt, and had to give notice every time it summonsed an entity for information in order to trace the assets, the taxpayer could just move their assets elsewhere in an endless game of cat and mouse.
In the present case, the taxpayer's wife said she should have been given notice since the summons affected her, not just her husband. But it's the same practical effect - you tell the wife, and the husband could move the assets.
- harry8 3y agoThe above analysis bothers the hell out of me. Because you might do something /wrong/ we need to have secret powers executed in secret. Surely if moving assets is wrong, there's a law that says in these circumstances you may not do it. Jail is a pretty good deterrent and only one party is subject to that. Surely if the IRS wants to do these things it can notify that it has done so at the absolute minimum. Not "lack of a gag order" but a hard requirement to notify. Secret searches seem like a power that /will/ be abused. Put money on it happening. And hey, it's not like the IRS doesn't have a history of abusing power. Just ask a journalist like Matt Taibbi about the IRS response to his testifying before congress for a recent example of naked, unwarranted intimidation (Why did they do that? Is it systemic abuse? We don't even know yet! But that they surely did is not actually up for debate...)
- coderintherye 3y agoYour reasoning is incorrect. The party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so.
- harry8 3y agoNonsense, the reasoning is completely sound and you have misread. The justification for secret powers executed in secret is that the "party in question" might proceed to do something else wrong in the future if they were notified. It's a classic case of, "We deem you bad so you have no further rights" justification as argued there. Read it again, it's actually a very important point. You yourself have broken laws in the past.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> secret powers executed in secret They’re noticed of their liability. And there is no gag order on those subpoenaed. The IRS isn’t getting a FISA court.
- harry8 3y agoThe whole thing can happen in secret. No gag does not require your notification. That secrecy will be abused. Count on it.
- kbenson 3y agoDoes a warrant to a third party require your notification? Either it does, in which case this is different, or it doesn't, in which case this is no different at all, and it's purely up to the third parties in general as to whether they want to notify you about what is (now) legal access to your records from a government entity.
- harry8 3y agoOh for goodness sakes what is going on here? So much ridiculous, wordy justification of the unjustifiable! Is it just AKTCHUALLY dialled up to eleven or something else? There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost. That is oversight.. If you aren't even notified you can't even get your lawyers to get a judge to do the obviously right thing when there is CLEAR abuse. Abuse that WILL happen. In secret. You can bet a lot on that, actually.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> There is NO WARRANT here. None. If there were a warrant then a judge could tell them to get lost Subpoenas require court approval. > what is going on here? Informed, reasoned, balanced debate. Flipping out isn’t a mark of good argument. > get a judge to do the obviously right thing Decades, at least, of precedent across courts and Congress disagree.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> party in question already did something wrong and it was proven so To be clear, there was no conviction. (There is court oversight.)
- nonethewiser 3y agoAllegedly. And alleged by the same party basing their own actions on it.
- nonethewiser 3y ago> If the IRS had concluded a taxpayer owed a tax debt, and had to give notice every time it summonsed an entity for information in order to trace the assets, the taxpayer could just move their assets elsewhere in an endless game of cat and mouse. This is just ends-justify-the-means reasoning. Unless there is a more principled reason, and maybe there is, Im not sure and endless game of cat and mouse is wrong.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoPossession isn't legal right. If the person doesn't have legal right to the assets (because, for instance, a third party, such as the IRS, is owed the assets) then there is no legal need to notify them. To look at it another way. What benefit, other than moving the assets, would the person receive from a notification?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> What benefit, other than moving the assets, would the person receive from a notification? Standing to quash. That said, this case isn’t about the target receiving notice. The suspect’s lawyers’ banks were subpoenaed, and the lawyers objected to not being noticed. Nowhere is the suspect’s right to notice debated.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoGood point. Somewhere in the discussion I forgot about this.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoThe same justification used for no knock raids. These are the type of people to defend the patriot act had it been made about tax evasion or stopping misinformation rather than terrorism.