From: "Gary Britt" 

I'm not familiar with that act, but I can absolutely tell you the IRS can
send a piece of paper to your bank without a warrant or judicial process
and without effective prior notice to you, and the bank will send them your
cash.

I don't think those reforms were mainly IRS internal procedural reforms,
but do not require prior warrants or judicial involvement.  They do not for
cash, and I'd be really surprised if they do for anything else.  They
certainly don't require warrants or prior judicial authorization to seize
your papers and computers and emails from your home, as well.

Gary

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43af017c$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> I agree with you that the power  of the IRS is frightening and that an
> attorney will be needed but I thought that the 'IRS Reform and
Restructuring
> Act of 1998'  allowed for due process hearings before any seizure ( hence
> the need for an attorney ) .
>
>
http://www.taxhelpattorney.com/articles/taxpayer-rights-before-irs-seizure-of-a
ssets.html
> Except for certain small limitations, the IRS has the ability to levy
> (garnish) or seize:
>
>   a.. bank accounts
>   b.. wages
>   c.. accounts receivable,
>   d.. assets transferred for less than fair market value to friends or
> relatives
>   e.. your home and other real estate
>   f.. cash value of life insurance
>   g.. pensions (also including federal pensions)
>   h.. Social Security benefits
>   i.. furniture and household belongings
>
>  "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43aefb56$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > Yes, after the fact, if you have 10's of thousands of dollars in cash
for
> > attorney's fees, you can file a claim for refund and sue to get the
refund
> > of taxes you dispute you owe in federal court.  With any luck and after
> > the
> > IRS appeals, you might get relief in 4 to 10 years.  Chances of
prevailing
> > are not good at all in most cases.
> >
> > You can sue for damages AFTER your home is gone and sold at auction or
> > after
> > their actions have put you out of business, provided their actions were
in
> > fact improper by failing to follow their own procedures or violating the
> > constitution (except the 4th amendment which doesn't apply except in a
> > criminal tax crime prosecution context), but the burden of proof is so
> > high
> > that your chances of winning (even in a situation where they later agree
> > they made a mistake and you didn't really owe the money they claimed you
> > owe
> > sorry we took your home and killed your business, oops) is far less than
> > 50%.  You would need $100,000 cash for attorney's fees to mount such a
> > contested legal matter with a decent attorney.
> >
> > I agree with you  this kind of power is quite shocking.  It seems to
> > normal
> > people to violate the constitution on many levels.  The federal courts
and
> > even the Supreme court have all recognized for a very long time, that if
> > they don't protect the government's receipt of money above all else, the
> > government's ability to pay them their salaries might be impaired and
more
> > seriously the government's existence itself could be impaired.
Therefore,
> > the Supreme Court almost never makes a decision whose practical effect
> > could
> > be to impede the collection of taxes by the government.  They just
> > rationalize away constitutional requirements.  They have done the same
> > thing
> > with regard to the payment of debts by the States, where the
constitution
> > flatly states that the States MUST pay their debts in gold!!!  The
Supreme
> > Court just chooses to completely ignore this provision and to refuse to
> > enforce it whatsoever, because to enforce it might impair the ability of
> > the
> > Federal Government to collect money or pay its own debts because the
> > federal
> > government doesn't issue money in the form of gold any longer nor is it
> > redeemable in gold any longer.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > "Dave Ings"  wrote in message
> > news:43aef6c0$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> I wasn't aware of this. Call me naive, but I find this amount of
> >> concentrated power quite shocking.
> >>
> >> Does one have recourse to the US courts (albeit after the fact) if you
> >> believe the power so exercised was inappropriate?
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave Ings,
> >> Toronto, Canada
> >>
> >> "Gary Britt" 
wrote in message
> >> news:43aef10b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The IRS can come into your home and business and seize
every piece of
> >> > paper,
> >> > your bank account records, every computer, your
furniture, your home
> >> > itself
> >> > all without a warrant or even any other kind of judicial process.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5