U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) convened a subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that explored IRS civil asset forfeiture policies and past practices.
Roskam, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight, said that a previous hearing revealed that the IRS used a law that is meant to help catch drug runners to punish farmers and small business owners.
“During the first panel, members heard from local business owners about their experiences with the IRS’s abuse of its civil asset forfeiture policies,” Roskam said. “As Calvin Taylor, who operates a family-owned farm on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, described, the IRS seized his family’s assets just weeks before his daughter’s wedding.”
Roskam recounted how Taylor testified that he had no choice but to allow the Department of Justice and IRS to keep his family’s legally earned money over threats of criminal charges for crimes he did not know had been committed.
U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) said that the IRS’s civil asset forfeiture policies amounted to “a shakedown.”
“The issue that we are talking about today should be a national outrage,” Kelly said “It is stunning to me, the arrogance of the IRS.”
U.S. Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA) noted that more than $43 million has been seized from American businesses owners with no record criminal activity.
“We have before no criminal suspicion, assets that have been seized, 618 cases,” Meehan said. “What is being done to look at the cases for those 618 cases? Because … justice delayed is justice denied. We are looking at years of delay for some of these individuals.”
Roskam said that the IRS announced a new policy in 2014 because it knew that “seizing money from farmers and store owners who appeared to be structuring their transactions wasn’t right.”
“And, indeed, a new policy doesn’t right all wrongs,” Roskam said. “Those people whose assets were seized under the old policy were not treated fairly. Several of them have sent petitions to the IRS and DOJ asking for their money back. The IRS granted one of those petitions and gave back $154,000. From all accounts, the IRS did this because it was the right thing to do. However, DOJ has not provided any relief, either financially or procedurally, to those who have petitioned for return of their funds. Those petitioners deserve a fair, transparent review process and an answer.”