I am in the process of moving some of my savings to gold but don’t want to trigger the IRS reporting or anything else for that matter. If I withdrawal $3,500 a day or a few times a week, will that cause problems? I have been saving for a while, and so it is definitely out of the ordinary for me to withdraw that kind of money frequently, however, I did tell them what I was doing, and even inquired about safety deposit boxes to store the gold I am buying.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
    31·
    18 hours ago

    It’s in the John Oliver segment about structuring, which for some reason I can’t find right now. It’s in there though. That’s the only reason I know anything about this stuff.

    • Ajen@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      41·
      18 hours ago

      I’m sorry, but what you’re saying doesn’t sound accurate. It would be a lot easier to believe you of you had evidence. Not that I think you’re lying, but you could be mistaken.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.catEnglish
        4·
        17 hours ago

        I can’t find the specific case (and it looks like it was maybe his insurance policy covering only up to $10,000, as opposed to the armored car service, which makes sense), but I found this:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html

        In one Long Island case, the police submitted almost a year’s worth of daily deposits by a business, ranging from $5,550 to $9,910. The officer wrote in his warrant affidavit that based on his training and experience, the pattern “is consistent with structuring.” The government seized $447,000 from the business, a cash-intensive candy and cigarette distributor that has been run by one family for 27 years.

        More than two years ago, the government seized $447,000, and the brothers have been unable to retrieve it. Mr. Salzman, who has taken over legal representation of the brothers, has argued that prosecutors violated a strict timeline laid out in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, passed in 2000 to curb abuses. The office of the federal attorney for the Eastern District of New York said the law’s timeline did not apply in this case. Still, prosecutors asked the Hirsches’ first lawyer, Joseph Potashnik, to waive the CARFA timeline. The waiver he signed expired almost two years ago.

        The federal attorney’s office said that parties often voluntarily negotiated to avoid going to court, and that Mr. Potashnik had been engaged in talks until just a few months ago. But Mr. Potashnik said he had spent that time trying, to no avail, to show that the brothers were innocent. They even paid a forensic accounting firm $25,000 to check the books.

        “I don’t think they’re really interested in anything,” Mr. Potashnik said of the prosecutors. “They just want the money.”

        So, you might be partially right: This might be an older pattern back when civil forfeiture was easier, when they could just take all your money because of “structuring,” but in the modern day, they might need to take you to court where you can easily beat the case if there was no intent. I definitely won’t swear that the case I remembered did not involve civil forfeiture.

        Of course, the laws and prosecutions are about to get pretty fucking wild, so who knows what will happen to the civil forfeiture reforms. I definitely wouldn’t start assuming good faith or fair dealing on the part of any federal prosecutors this year going forward. Bottom line try not to commit any crimes.