4 ms·
> 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, th
by 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.