\nBy Melissa Quinn
\nReprinted with permission of the Daily Signal<\/em><\/p>\n
Maryland farmer Calvin Taylor has lived his life always trying to do the right thing.<\/p>\n
Taylor and his wife Debora operate C.W. Taylor Farms in Preston, Maryland, where they grow sweet corn and raise chickens, and run several farm stands, called Taylor\u2019s Produce, across Maryland\u2019s Eastern Shore.<\/p>\n
Through their business, the couple employs a number of teenagers to work at their farm stands and on the farm. They boast of selling the best corn in the state of Maryland.<\/p>\n
On Sept. 16, 2011, though, the Taylors learned that thousands of dollars their business generated had disappeared in an instance.<\/p>\n
On that day, Taylor told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight in testimony Wednesday, IRS agents knocked on the couple\u2019s farmhouse door and asked to speak with Taylor about his banking transactions.<\/p>\n
At first, the agents said they didn\u2019t think the Taylors had done anything wrong. But the conversation shifted from discussions about a change in their business\u2019s name on its checking account to a pattern of cash deposits Taylor made at the bank.<\/p>\n
WND EXCLUSIVE: Big development for bakery after IRS seized its cash: \u2018We just want the government to leave us alone\u2019<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n The agents, Taylor told lawmakers Wednesday, wanted to know why so many of his transactions had totaled just under $10,000, and Taylor told them it was common knowledge that any cash deposits of more than $10,000 meant that the bank had to file a form with the government.<\/p>\n According to other business owners Taylor had spoken with, any cash deposit of over $10,000 was reported to the IRS, and \u201cnobody wants your name filed to the IRS, even if you\u2019re as honest as you can be.\u201d<\/p>\n To the IRS, though, the pattern of deposits under $10,000 was indicative of structuring, which involves making consistent cash transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements.<\/p>\n Law-abiding citizens, including Maryland farmer Calvin Taylor (far left), who became victims of IRS abuse testify before members of the Oversight Subcommittee.<\/p><\/div>\n Structuring is a crime.<\/strong><\/p>\n The agents talked with Calvin and Debora Taylor for an hour before telling them they had been to the couple\u2019s bank and taken all of their money\u2014$90,175.48\u2014 through civil forfeiture, leaving them with nothing.<\/p>\n \u201cI thought of the bills that had to be paid, the teenagers who hadn\u2019t cashed their checks yet,\u201d Taylor said today. \u201cWhat kind of employer bounces checks off of their employees?\u201d<\/p>\n Furthermore, the couple had mailed out invitations to their daughter\u2019s wedding the day before the agents visited their house, and they were planning to pay for both her wedding and reception taking place six weeks later.<\/p>\n Taylor provided the IRS with four years of financial information to prove he and his business had done nothing wrong, and two weeks later, the IRS said it didn\u2019t think Taylor knowingly broke the law.<\/p>\n The government offered him a settlement: 5 percent of the amount of the money deposited in \u201cstructured\u201d amounts from July 2008 to August 2011, which totaled $41,790.<\/p>\n \u201cI was realistically looking at losing what I had worked my life for and what my father had worked his life for,\u201d Taylor said. \u201cSo there was no choice. I had to sign.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Morally Wrong\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n On Wednesday, Taylor and Frederick, Md., dairy farm owner Randy Sowers testified before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight to talk about their experiences with civil asset forfeiture, a tool that gives law enforcement the power to take cash, cars, and property if they suspect it\u2019s tied to a crime.<\/p>\n Both Taylor and Sowers had tens of thousands of dollars seized by the IRS under civil forfeiture for a crime called structuring.<\/p>\n Under the Bank Secrecy Act, structuring, which involves making consistent cash deposits and withdrawals of under $10,000 with the intent of evading reporting requirements, is a crime.<\/p>\n Structuring laws were intended to target money launderers, drug traffickers, and those funding terrorist activity. However, small business owners like Taylor and Sowers have become trapped in the system.<\/p>\n In many cases, the only crime the business owners are committing is structuring, and both Sowers and Taylor contend they were unaware they were doing anything wrong.<\/p>\n \u201cThomas Jefferson said something about the government getting so big that it can take everything you have,\u201d Taylor said Wednesday. \u201cIt just seems very, very real to me right now.\u201d<\/p>\n The IRS argues that structuring is illegal, and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told lawmakers repeatedly that a prosecutor and federal judge must find probable cause to seize money from Americans.<\/p>\n Koskinen, as well as federal officials who appeared before the subcommittee, could not comment on specific cases.<\/p>\n After a growing number of cases involving innocent people who had money seized by the IRS for structuring were documented by the media, though, the IRS and Justice Department both internally changed their policies to address the issue in 2014 and 2015, respectively.<\/p>\n Under the new policies, officials with the federal government could only pursue structuring cases if they could prove the money in question stemmed from criminal activity.<\/p>\n The new rules at the IRS and Justice Department offered additional protections for business owners dealing largely in cash. But they did little to help Sowers and Taylor, whose money was seized before the federal government acted.<\/p>\n And Taylor and Sowers aren\u2019t alone.<\/p>\n The IRS told lawmakers Wednesday that they have identified 75 cases involving property owners whose money was wrongfully seized, and whose money wouldn\u2019t have been seized under the current policy.<\/p>\n The Institute for Justice, though, identified more than 600 cases involving property owners who had a collective $43 million seized from 2007 to 2013. In those cases, the IRS didn\u2019t report any suspicion of criminal activity outside of structuring.<\/p>\n Koskinen, however, said some of those cases may involve money coming from an illegal source.<\/p>\n \u201cYou don\u2019t have to be a lawyer or a lawmaker to know this is morally wrong,\u201d Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., said. \u201cThis amounts to stealing somebody\u2019s property by using coercion and the power of government. Just because it\u2019s the government doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s right. It makes it even worse.\u201d<\/p>\n To further protect property owners who have cash taken by the IRS for structuring violations, Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Peter Roskam, R-Ill., and Rep. Joseph Crowley, D-N.Y., a committee member, introduced a bill that would codify the IRS\u2019s policy change.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ve brought a subcommittee together that can\u2019t agree on what time of day it is. We can\u2019t agree on the Affordable Care Act. We can\u2019t agree on the Iran sanctions deal. We cannot agree on tort reform and tax reform and entitlement reform,\u201d Roskam said of the IRS and Justice Department. \u201cBut we are all together in thinking [the IRS and Justice Department] are the problem and [the small business owners are] the good guys.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018Because They Could\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n After the IRS seized Taylor\u2019s money, he said his reputation in the community changed\u2014he and his wife became known as the \u201cpeople who had a problem with the IRS.\u201d<\/p>\n To help the family, Taylor\u2019s son stopped accepting wages for the remainder of 2011, living instead off savings, and Taylor had to take out an operating loan to start the following year, adding to his interest expenses.<\/p>\n Taylor just recently reimbursed his son for the wages he gave up after the IRS seized money from his parents\u2019 business.<\/p>\n After the IRS and Justice Department changed their policies in 2014 and 2015 regarding their pursuit of structuring cases, lawyers for Sowers and Taylor filed petitions for their respective clients asking the federal government to return the money each business owner forfeited.<\/p>\n Called petitions for remission or mitigation, the legal mechanisms are akin to a pardon petition and, if approved by the government, would require the IRS and Justice Department to return the money taken from Sowers and Taylor.<\/p>\n Neither business owner has received word from the federal government, though the Justice Department told Taylor it could still prosecute him for criminal charges.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re always looking over your shoulder. When you think you\u2019re doing the right thing, you wonder, \u2018Am I doing the wrong thing even though I think I\u2019m doing the right thing?\u2019\u201d Taylor said of how he\u2019s changed since the IRS took his money. \u201cI\u2019ve always tried to be very honest and upright in everything I do. I don\u2019t have much faith in the government. They took my money with no notice, and then they kept it even though they found nothing wrong. They kept it because they could.\u201d Farmer fights for return of $41,000 seized by IRS<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n![\"Law-abiding](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/harris.png\")
<\/a>
\n___<\/p>\n