The heavy hand of the IRS
Earnest moralists lament Americans' distrust of government. What is regrettable is that government does much to earn distrust, as Terry Dehko, 70, and his daughter Sandy Thomas, 41, understand.
Terry, who came to Michigan from Iraq in 1970, did what immigrants often do: He went into business, buying Schott's Supermarket in Fraser, Mich., where he still works six days a week. Sandy has a master's degree in urban planning but has worked in the store off and on since she was 12.
She says that in 2013 IRS agents “just walked into the store” and announced that they had emptied the store's bank account. The agents believed, or pretended to believe, that Terry and Sandy were or could be conducting a criminal enterprise when not selling groceries.
What pattern of behavior supposedly aroused suspicion? Terry and Sandy regularly make deposits of less than $10,000 in the bank across the street. Federal law requires banks to report cash deposits of more than $10,000. It also makes it illegal to “structure” deposits to evade such reporting.
Because 35 percent of Schott's Supermarket's receipts are in cash, Terry and Sandy make frequent trips to the bank to avoid having large sums at the store. Their insurance policy covers no cash loss in excess of $10,000.
In 2010 and 2012, IRS agents visited the store and examined Terry's and Sandy's conduct. In 2012, the IRS notified them that it identified “no violations” of banking laws. But on Jan. 22, 2013, Terry and Sandy discovered that the IRS had obtained a secret warrant and emptied the store's bank account of more than $35,000.
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 by simply asking them about the reasons — prudence, and the insurance limits — for their banking practices. It had, however, a reason not to ask obvious questions before proceeding.
The civil forfeiture 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.
Sandy remembers her father exclaiming, “Aren't we in the United States? We did nothing wrong.” They did something right in discovering the Institute for Justice's activities against civil forfeiture abuse. IJ says that what was done to Terry is done routinely across the nation.
Civil forfeiture proceeds on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle, forcing property owners to hire lawyers and engage in protracted proceedings against a government with limitless resources just to prove their innocence. Says IJ: “To make matters worse, forfeiture law treats property owners like random bystanders and requires them to intervene in the lawsuit filed by the government against their property just to get it back.”
The IRS offered to return 20 percent of Terry's money. Such extortion often succeeds when the IRS bullies bewildered people not represented by IJ, which forced the government to return all of Terry's money.
IJ's countersuit seeks an injunction to prevent such IRS thefts and extortions. Meanwhile, earnest moralists might consider the possibility that Americans' distrust of government is insufficient.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pirates sign Corey Hart to 1-year deal
- Port Authority fires two bus drivers involved in rollover crash
- Giant Eagle Inc. appears to have settled ‘fuelperks!’ lawsuit
- Police gather in Ligonier for Perryopolis officer’s funeral
- Analysis: Misunderstood Chryst served Pitt well
- Game isn’t over for Kim Jong Un spoof ‘Glorious Leader!’
- Steelers must be creative in providing snaps for linebackers
- Rossi: Brawl for ADs between Pitt and WVU
- Review: No improper contact between Pa. Supreme Court justices, lawyers
- Time is of essence for Pitt in finding football coach, athletic director
- Assistant at Duke eyes Pitt football job