Legal Sparring Continues in Bitcoin User's Battle with IRS Tax Sweep (fortune.com) 101
In a strange twist, Coindesk reports that the IRS has, somewhat indirectly, removed one target from its broad request for data about U.S. users of the Bitcoin exchange Coinbase. It no longer wants data about Jeffrey Berns, a lawyer who also happens to be fighting the IRS's "John Doe" request in court. From a report on Fortune: Berns originally filed a motion on December 13th asking the U.S. District Court for Northern California to stop the IRS' subpoena of Coinbase records. The IRS believes that its request, filed in November, is justified because Bitcoin owners "may fail, or may have failed, to comply with one or more provisions of the internal revenue laws." Berns is represented by his own law firm, Berns Weiss, whose motion argues that the IRS data search is "an abuse of process" and "overbroad." Berns has said his motion is intended to defend not only himself, but all targeted users. But according to a December 28th court filing by the IRS, Berns is no longer a target of its records request because he identified himself in his own filing, and the request is only for unidentified users. Therefore, the IRS argues, Berns is not a party to proceedings and his request to block the data grab should be thrown out of court. In response, Berns Weiss had its own spin, telling Coindesk that "The IRS's willingness to withdraw the summons as to Mr. Berns only because it is now aware of his identity," and without the additional information they're seeking about many other Coinbase users, "Makes it clear that the IRS does not have a legitimate purpose in seeking substantial personal and financial information concerning approximately 3 million Americans."
In Short (Score:3, Informative)
In U.S. law, only someone who is involved in the conflict may ask the courts to resolve the matter in a particular way. The IRS then essentially removed this lawyer from the conflict; because the lawyer no longer meets the requirements for participating in the matter, the IRS is asking his petition to the courts to be rejected.
Slick. And Stupid.
Re: In Short (Score:2)
Also futile by the IRS, because the alleged mootness is due to "voluntary cessation" by the IRS, which does not moot the underlying case or controversy, and also because the IRS is obviously repeating the behavior (and the possibility of repetition is another bar to mootness).
Re: (Score:2)
Stop saying moot!
Re: (Score:2)
And just because he's identified doesn't mean that his records are no longer involved. If they end up with his data in the end, then he still has a right to be involved.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In U.S. law, "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".
But please, keep trying to suck Officer Friendly's cock; he'll no doubt cut you some slack when he eventually gets around to figuring out what (not "if") crime you're guilty of.
Re:In Short (Score:4, Informative)
In U.S. law, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and ...
In U.S. law, early amendments to the constitution can be overridden by later amendments. The 16th Amendment authorizes the federal government to collect income tax, and there is no way to do that without sticking its nose into every nook and cranny of everyone's financial affairs.
You may still have your 4th amendment rights in other areas, but not for anything to do with money. 99% of the people are okay with that. If you are not, then you can join the 1% that vote Libertarian. Good luck.
The 16th amendment simply provides for basic authorization of tax collection. The implementation is a long list of laws passed by congress collectively referred to as the tax code (including the law that creates the IRS itself). These laws, just like any other, must comply with all the other amendments - 4th included.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The 16th amendment simply provides for basic authorization of tax collection.
The 16th Amendment says that "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes ...". The courts have ruled that "lay and collect" includes the authority to audit, and to demand financial records without prior evidence, probable cause, or even a warrant.
These laws, just like any other, must comply with all the other amendments - 4th included.
That may indeed be true in your fantasy alternative libertarian utopia universe.
If you are audited, just demand to see a warrant. The come back and let us know how that worked out for you.
Re:Interpretations (Score:2)
Re: In Short (Score:1)
I am voluntarily opting not to be thrown in jail, so I continue to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
That particular argument died with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Federal income taxes were unconstitutional until then, but not now.
Re: (Score:2)
The IRS then essentially removed this lawyer from the conflict; because the lawyer no longer meets the requirements for participating in the matter, the IRS is asking his petition to the courts to be rejected.
Slick. And Stupid.
Nice try, IRS. But there's nothing to stop the John Does from contacting Berns and asking his firm to represent them, which he can agree to do pro bono. Once he's legally representing the others you can't shoo him away so easily.
Re:In Short (Score:5, Interesting)
But those John Does would have to prove legal standing (by proving they were specifically targeted), and by identifying themselves, would then lose the legal standing they had gained, same as what happened to the lawyer.
The government has been very careful to make sure nobody can use the legal system against them. They have set up a catch-22 situation where establishing standing causes a loss of standing, so that literally nobody has the right to sue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plot twist: Everyone reveals themselves as Coinbase clients with Berns as their counsel.
The IRS either loses all their John Does and has nothing, or has to prove they weren't just fishing the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
That occurred to me. I would suggest Berns should be able to represent them without having to make their identities known to the prosecution, as long as he can prove to the court they did agree to have him represent them. If the IRS is looking for "John Does" eventually they will have to request information on them. If the IRS can bring a case against people it cannot name to the court, why can't Berns defend them under the same level of anonymity?
Once the IRS reveals their list of people, Berns can come fo
Re: (Score:2)
I did some research on the idea of suing anonymously. and it's generally not allowed (you have the right to face your accuser in court, which means you have a right to know who your accuser is). However, judges do have the authority to keep the plaintiffs name secret from the defendant in special circumstances (such as threat of bodily harm). The guidelines for allowing it also vary from state to state.
They would have to file a motion for it, and they would have to make a case that plaintiff anonymity is ne
Re:Roe vs Wade (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the IRS's argument is that, as soon as someone identifies themselves by suing them to prevent this release of data, they'll remove that person from the data grab request so they no longer have standing to sue them, and get the case thrown out?
Hey America, there's this concept called 'justice'. You knew about it, once.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
they'll remove that person from the data grab request so they no longer have standing to sue them, and get the case thrown out?
When it comes to a violation of personal liberty, privacy, and constitutional rights protecting individuals, the concept of "Standing" is bogus and needs to be eliminated. Every American is damaged if personal liberties and privacy are infringed upon by the government.
Assumed Guilt (Score:1)
Is illegal in this country. Sorry IRS, go F- yourself.
That someone "might do something wrong" is not a valid reason. If they win this, we are screwed. "show us your papers, and your wallet". You can say good bye to paper money too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kindly explain how that is compatible with a request for data not specific to a particular person, place, and objective of the search?
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect, Coinbase does report. This is from the period of time before it was legally ruled that bitcoin ex
Re: (Score:2)
There is no federal sales tax, so it's not an IRS matter. It's between the buyers and their respective state governments (only some of which have an applicable tax).
Re: (Score:2)
Therein lies the crux of the problem the IRS is demanding history on users during the period before "right" had been determined. Bitcoin users were required to guess what to do. This is akin to determining traffic cams will constitute sufficient cause to punish jay walking and then demanding the footage from the past five years to retroactively punish... and given the way the IRS operates to assess penalties for being late paying the fines on the retroactive citations.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a search warrant, a search warrant must be specific and name a specific target and what they hope to find. It is supposed to require probable cause a justice believes sufficient to indicate the warrant will enable law enforcement to find the evidence they seek. The bar is much lower than beyond a reasonable doubt but there is a bar.
This is, hey give us all your records just in case there might be s
Re: (Score:1)
http://papersplease.org/
You have *no idea* how deep the state is against you.
If you had any sense or care about your family and the future you would start rattling the sabers of revolt and not let up until you force the state into submission.
Re: (Score:2)
None. They only care what you do with *their* money.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your money." My sides!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you use any infrastructure at all to make money? Like roads? Bridges? Encounter any traffic lights? Did you have workers that needed food? Hospitals? Did your valuable income need protection from someone? Did you have business disputes that you want a judge to reside over? And do you think judges are items you can just buy? Did you want a building for your office that didn't come down in the first week, because inspectors made sure it adhered to the building codes? Did you like the wiring in the building? Did you feel safer, knowing there was a fire brigade in the beighbourhood? And that if you fell ill there was an ambulance nearby? Did you like the fact your employees got an education? Or yourself?
Let's make a deal: you stop paying taxes, and you also stop using anything that was paid for by taxes. I'm fine with that. Have fun in your cave.
Re:Easy... (Score:4, Insightful)
[sarcasm]
Let's make a deal: you stop paying taxes, and you also stop using anything that was paid for by taxes. I'm fine with that. Have fun in your cave.
Donald Trump doesn't pay taxes, why should I?
[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New depths of crazy. (Score:5, Insightful)
"may fail, or may have failed, to comply with one or more provisions of the internal revenue laws."
Excuse me!? First off swap that out with any other situation such as "we need a search warrant to search all of the apartments in a building because one of them may have, or may soon commit a crime" and any judge in the US with their head screwed on straight would laugh it out of court. Secondly even the IRS has I believe admitted that the tax code is so insanely convoluted that not even they can truly define the legal bounds of the tax code. So not only are they asking for sweeping ability to search personal records but they can't even define what laws those people may or may not have run afoul of.
Re: (Score:2)
"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."
- Lavrentiy Beria
Re: (Score:2)
...swap that out with any other situation such as "we need a search warrant to search all of the apartments in a building because one of them may have, or may soon commit a crime" and any judge in the US with their head screwed on straight would laugh it out of court...
No in the "National Security Court"...
bullshit (Score:1)
Look, they're providing a money laundering service. It doesn't matter if you do that with a bank or an investment firm; you have to report the transactions to the IRS. Every other company in the US that's exchanging money has to report the transactions to the IRS. Remember that more of the constitution is about banking than any other thing. You have to pay your fucking taxes. The bitcoin exchanges are pretending that they don't have to comply with banking or investment law. They're wrong.
Applies to all financial information (Score:2)
The thing is: These arguments apply equally well to any and all financial information that the IRS receives. Why should your employer be forced to tell the IRS what they pay you? Why should your bank be forced to supply the IRS with account information? All of this is only because the IRS doesn't trust you, the individual taxpayer, to properly file your taxes. It is *all* in violation of the 4th amendment, as far as I can see.
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me!? First off swap that out with any other situation such as "we need a search warrant to search all of the apartments in a building because one of them may have, or may soon commit a crime" and any judge in the US with their head screwed on straight would laugh it out of court
The discovery of tax related documents to the IRS do not work the same way as they do for a criminal court. If the IRS suspects you of dodging your taxes you're guilty until proven innocent, and you can and will be asked to show all documentation to prove your innocence even if there's no evidence that you ever dogged taxes.
This is what tax audits essentially are. "Prove to us you haven't committed a tax crime"
AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE... (Score:2, Informative)
And no warrants shall issue except upon PROBABLE CAUSE.
When your government has routinely violated the very Constitution under which it is supposed to operate,
and has been doing so for at least the last 15 years completely with rampant disrespect and wanton abandon,
and refusal to listen and correct its ways,
it is time for you to overthrow that government.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is a form of asset. Just like shares of stock, you are supposed to pay capital gains tax on the difference between purchase and sales price. It's how our government profits from the asset inflation that they themselves cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also how we stop the 1% from hording all of civilizations wealth
Not really. "The 1%" have a number of allowances and deductions available to them to mitigate the impact of cap gains taxes. These taxes serves mainly to keep you and I from reaching the 1% group and ensure that we continue working as wage slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Also forget the 1%, that is a very carefully chosen category so it includes those who have worked hard to earn more than others and includes doctors, lawyers, and engineers. It is the 0.1% by wealth who have 40% of our nations wealth and continue to do so year on year so they are
Get back to important stuff: SCO vs IBM (Score:3)
Yeah, (Score:2)
Saw that one coming. I believe that it's not the IRS that really wants this data, it's the NSA/CIA, but they can't ask for it. One can always tell when the government is up to no good by how fast they drop someone, or how fast they start with the "no standing" thing.
3 Million - Bullshit (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unconstutional search (Score:2)
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.
They're asking for the records of everyone who used the exchange, without evidence that any law has been broken. Why hasn't this been thrown out yet?
Monies for the lulz (Score:1)
Use the IRS excuse (Score:2)
All our hard drives crashed and the tape backups cannot be found.