SCOTUS: Polselli v. IRS - IRS surveillance powers

Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

pmbug

Your Host
Administrator
Benefactor
Messages
15,029
Reaction score
4,846
Points
268
Location
Texas
United-States

Cato, Institute for Justice and others submitted amicus briefs on the issue.
 
From the article: A favorable ruling for the agency would grant "effectively unfettered power to seek the complete financial records of anyone with even a tenuous connection to a delinquent taxpayer," the Institute for Justice wrote in its brief.

Sounds like they want to be able to secretly dig into the financial records of completely innocent people in order to try to catch those who may not be.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Edited to add: the word "shall" in the law means "may". As in, "may not be violated." If someone in authority over you tells you that "you may not" do X, does that imply wiggle room that would allow you to do X anyways?

How does secretly searching anything, in any way comply with the 4th? Imho, it doesn't, and cannot.
...but these days the gov wouldn't know how to do anything if it had to fully comply with the intent the Framers had in mind when they wrote our Constitution.




Also, the article's author would have done well to cite the actual law the irs is seeking to reinterpret , as opposed to just linking to a site that requires a log in.
Polselli seeks to settle a disagreement among lower courts over an exception in a section of law governing IRS authority.
 
Last edited:
There is case law out there saying the IRS cant just go on fishing expeditions. So, they tell you to come in for a meeting and then ask you how you pay your bills because it doesn't appear that you have any income. That would be illegal for them to do.
If you have a bank account and the banks share info on your account with them (Thus the real reasons for banks wanting to know every time you make a deposit or withdrawal of more than a few k ) Then they have the right to inquire about those funds. It's really a sneaky back door program to get around having to go through the courts for a court order to view your bank records. Thus, the banks really are an extension of the IRS nowadays.

In my opinion, it sounds like if the IRS gets to secretly attain peoples bank records, it is opening the door to CBDC and the end of privacy. This may just be a stepping stone in that direction so when cbdc's are implemented the IRS has free access to all records and can tax at will.
 
There is case law out there saying the IRS cant just go on fishing expeditions. So, they tell you to come in for a meeting and then ask you how you pay your bills because it doesn't appear that you have any income. That would be illegal for them to do.
If you have a bank account and the banks share info on your account with them (Thus the real reasons for banks wanting to know every time you make a deposit or withdrawal of more than a few k ) Then they have the right to inquire about those funds. It's really a sneaky back door program to get around having to go through the courts for a court order to view your bank records. Thus, the banks really are an extension of the IRS nowadays.

In my opinion, it sounds like if the IRS gets to secretly attain peoples bank records, it is opening the door to CBDC and the end of privacy. This may just be a stepping stone in that direction so when cbdc's are implemented the IRS has free access to all records and can tax at will.

Yes, its called FACSISM.
 

Supreme Court gives IRS green light to seek bank records without notice​

Story by Kaelan Deese • 50m ago

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Internal Revenue Service doesn't have to notify bank account holders before requesting their records if efforts are geared toward collecting someone else's delinquent taxes.

The IRS is given broad authority under tax code Section 7609(c)(2)(D), which exempts the agency from giving notice when a summons is issued to help collect a tax assessment "against the person with respect to whose liability the summons is issued," according to the unanimous high court.

More:

 
So Hunter Biden owes back taxes and they can request Donald Trumps bank records? Probably not but the article is worded strangely.

I wonder if any SC justice has ever been audited.
 
Back
Top Bottom