In a move that has gotten very little press attention, all 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices voted to allow the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to quietly look into American’s private bank accounts, regardless if the individual is under investigation or not, when seeking a summons for banking records believed to be relevant to the tax delinquency of another individual.
A lawyer who briefed the Supreme Court said the new ruling gives the IRS “startlingly broad authority to pry into the financial records of people who may be only remotely connected to a delinquent taxpayer,” The Epoch Times reported.
‘At oral arguments on March 29, the justices seemed sympathetic to the claim of the wife of a man who owed substantial taxes that the IRS went too far in pursuing her bank records without prior notice. At the same time, they acknowledged that the agency needs effective tools to attempt to collect delinquent accounts,’ The ET noted.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Polselli v. IRS (court file 21-1599) sided with the Biden administration, which the Justices contend that the IRS does not need to provide a memorandum notice to third parties, and doing such would give delinquent taxpayers “a head start in hiding assets,” Roberts penned in the open opinion on May 18th.
Congress has given the IRS considerable power to go after unpaid taxes.
One tool at the Service’s disposal is the authority to summon people with information concerning a delinquent taxpayer. But to safeguard privacy, the IRS is generally required to provide notice to anyone named in a summons, who can then sue to quash it. Today’s case concerns an exception to that general rule.
Roberts wrote
SEE: Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare. Trump’s Appointees Vote To Not Challenge The Legislation
Roberts explained that now the IRS can now demand the production of “books, papers, records, or other data” from “any person” they wish.
‘”Given the breadth of this power, Congress has imposed certain safeguards” and will typically have to give notice of the summons to anyone identified in it, who is then entitled to bring a motion to quash said summons (at considerable personal legal expense, of course),’ ZeroHedge adds. ‘If the summons is issued in aid of the collection of an assessment made or judgement rendered, however, the notice does not have to be provided.’
In other words, the IRS may issue summonses both to determine whether a taxpayer owes money and later to collect any outstanding liability. When the IRS conducts an investigation for the purpose of ‘determining the liability’ of a taxpayer … it must provide notice … But once the Service has reached the stage of ‘collecting any such liability,’ … —which is a distinct activity—notice may not be required.
Roberts wrote
Moreover, in a separate opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – Biden’s recent judge pick, who says she cannot adequately define what a ‘woman’ is – penned that Congress has “recognized that there might be situations, particularly in the collection context, where providing notice could frustrate the IRS’s ability to effectively administer the tax laws.”
For instance, upon receiving notice that the IRS has served a summons, interested persons might move or hide collectable assets, making the agency’s collection efforts substantially harder.
She added
SEE: Supreme Court Allows Media Monopolies To Own Even More
Paul Sherman, counsel for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, commented on the ruling and warned that this allows for a de-facto law that allows the IRS access to anyone’s bank account with discretion and permission.
The Supreme Court’s ruling grants the IRS startlingly broad authority to pry into the financial records of people who may be only remotely connected to a delinquent taxpayer.
That ruling raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns. Thankfully, the Court stressed that its ruling was narrowly focused on the statutory question before it. In a future case, the Court should address the constitutional limits on the government’s power to demand access to people’s most sensitive financial information.
Sherman wrote
SEE: Supreme Court Defends Goldman Sachs Banker Gang
This move, in short, directly contradicts and paves over the Amendment IV of the Bill of Rights, which states:
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.
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Some of you may recall that I reposted a similar article about a week and a half ago, but I wanted to talk about it again because of the importance and significance of this. Such news is unprecedented but has gotten next to no press time.
I am no fan of this guy, but the comedian George Carlin said it best:
Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the senate, the congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.
It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.
Not only did the Supreme Court rule to allow this, it passed unanimously, which means that both Biden’s plant, and Trump’s three Justice picks, all voted to allow this. Republican, Democrat, there is no difference, it does not exist at the end of the day. They are all bought and paid for, and pass laws and rule in favor of criminals.
An ungodly witness scorneth judgment: and the mouth of the wicked devoureth iniquity.
Proverbs 19:28
This move, beyond the obvious erosion of freedom and personal liberty, is yet another time when the Constitution and Bill of Rights has been trampled. The timing is also interesting, due to the fact that FedNow, the Federal Reserve’s instant payment and transfer system that will help facilitate a CBDC, is set to launch in July. The central banks need easier access to private accounts in order for their system to work better, thus adding context to the move.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
