[ExI] now this, from the legal department...
atymes at gmail.com
Sat Jul 12 06:04:47 UTC 2014
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:48 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> The IRS argues that businesses like Allgreens have other options. For
> example, "Taxpayer may use a currency exchange/same-day loan establishment,
> to convert cash (often times for a fee) into a money order to deposit and
> then use a financial institution to complete a same-day wire transaction
> (often times for a fee)." Alternatively, "Taxpayer may utilize/authorize a
> third party such as a tax professional, accountant, payroll service firm,
> etc., to make the deposit on their behalf. Using the third party service,
> the deposit is made through the batch provider software using the third
> parties' bank account."
> The problem, as Gillette points out, is that such tricky maneuvers can be
> treated as money laundering
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956>, a crime punishable by
> up to 20 years in prison under federal law. "An alternative should not
> force a taxpayer to engage in a potentially unlawful activity under a
> federal statute," she writes, concluding that "the IRS's decision in this
> case is arbitrary and capricious."
1) "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" is an old catch with taxes on
illegal activities. Nothing new here.
2) Money laundering requires intent. Look at the linked-to definition of
money laundering: neither clause of a.1.B applies (making a.1 inapplicable)
so long as it's just to comply with the law, not to disguise anything. a.2
doesn't apply if all the funds are kept in the US. If the tax preparer is
*just* doing taxes, not promoting the marijuana in any way (and again, not
disguising things or avoiding reporting transactions), a.3 doesn't apply
either. And that's the whole section.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat