Defendant: Peter Troost
Tax loss: $1,039,343
FBAR Penalty: $3.75 million.
Court: ND IL
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. (Wikipedia entry here)
Key excerpts from the USAO ND IL announcement are (bold face emphasis supplied by JAT):
Troost, 78, of Skokie, has already paid $1,039,343 in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, as well as a civil penalty of approximately $3.75 million, but U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr., said those payments alone would not sufficiently deter wealthy individuals from failing to meet their voluntary tax obligations.
According to Troost’s plea agreement, from at least 1999 until 2009, he transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars from the United States to his individual offshore UBS account for the sole purpose of evading domestic income taxes. He maintained at least one offshore UBS account between 1981 and 2009, while maintaining at least one additional joint account. He managed both accounts with the assistance of a UBS personal banker based on the island of Jersey. In addition to failing to report interest income, Troost admitted that he intentionally failed to report all of his income from his monument business and his rental properties.
Between 1999 and 2009, Troost failed to report income from all sources totaling $3,338,929, on which he owed $1,039,343 in federal taxes. In addition, Troost stated on his returns for each of those years that he did not have an interest in a financial account in a foreign country, when, in fact, he knew he maintained the offshore UBS account.Note the part I bold-faced above. But, even though the sentence is significant, it is still below the indicated guidelines range for a tax loss exceeding $1 million. I don't have time now, but will supply the guidelines calculations tomorrow as best I can construct them on the information known to me. Still, even though below the guidelines ranges, the fact that a 78 year old is given a sentence for the reason that financial payments alone are not sufficient to deter the conduct may represent some hardening in the court's attitudes to offshore evasion, although one or two cases may not constitute a trend.
I remind readers that the sentence to one year and one day is a gambit to permit the defendant to get an actual sentence is about 15% less than one year. I will provide that calculation also tomorrow.