tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post2118697732860507493..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Another UBS Related Taxpayer Plea Agreement (5/31/12)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-36838396303778784762012-06-13T06:24:27.357-05:002012-06-13T06:24:27.357-05:00 I remember one of your previous blog entries abou... I remember one of your previous blog entries about someone called Michael Hase, who had (some) illegal income, which he had actually embezzled from the US Government as a USAID official, AND had an unreported account at UBS, and still paid only 50%. <br /><br />I would think the government would be nearly as harsh on a government official who steals from it, as it would from a drug dealer. But the penalty was still 50%. To be fair, I think the account itself was much larger (2 million or so) than the embezzled amount and may have been almost entirely legal source money. <br /><br />I am not sure if this indicates the 50% is a limit for illegal source income or not. I think at least one of the people who pled in the recent insider trading cases had an unreported foreign account in the name of his housekeeper. He may be subject to a FBAR civil penalty on that, although I think the SEC may have grabbed that money anyway. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-7552444268582346862012-06-05T16:46:42.594-05:002012-06-05T16:46:42.594-05:00I think the examiners and the attorneys who must r...I think the examiners and the attorneys who must review the final work product know that they should not go beyond 50% in the highest year. Again, I am assuming just potential tax violators. What they might do with drug dealers, mafia bosses, and child molesters / pornographers, well I suppose that could be different.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJackTownsendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-20726041297072569732012-06-05T16:30:14.393-05:002012-06-05T16:30:14.393-05:00 It would be nice if the IRS were to instruct its... It would be nice if the IRS were to instruct its examiners on audit (opt out or otherwise) to consider the fact that the maximum penalty taken from people who were clearly willful violators has been (so far) 50%. That is not much comfort to expats, who may have the great bulk of their assets abroad, of course. <br /><br />Jack, I suppose this is something that could be brought up with an examiner if the IRS tries to go beyond 50% (say by using the non-willful penalty per account), since penalties are supposed to be reasonably fair and consistent ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-65661470575264721552012-06-04T19:10:36.898-05:002012-06-04T19:10:36.898-05:00 Jack
Thanks, that's a relief to minnows, who... Jack<br /><br />Thanks, that's a relief to minnows, who might be able to take an (unlikely) 50% penalty, but not a ridiculous penalty that far exceeds account size (assuming reasonably good facts).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-61371604483550043142012-06-04T11:25:06.475-05:002012-06-04T11:25:06.475-05:00I don't have any reason to believe that the IR...I don't have any reason to believe that the IRS is imposing a worse result in civil audits than it forces as a condition for a minimum plea agreement in criminal cases -- i.e., 50% of the high balance in a single year. Indeed, I have heard government sources say cryptically and without attribution that that is the high point the Government will assert. Now, what the Government might do to child porn industry players and drug dealers is a different question. But for persons who sole misconduct is to cheat on taxes, even egregiously, I think the expectation is that it will be 50% in the high year and for the lesser conduct in tax cheating, it will scale down from there.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJackTownsendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-41395895660665112302012-06-04T11:07:56.806-05:002012-06-04T11:07:56.806-05:00Jack
Is the government trying to go beyond extra...Jack<br /><br /> Is the government trying to go beyond extracting 50% of max balance (+ tax due + civil fraud penalty) in any of the civil adjustment UBS cases ? I assume these may be people with compelling stories like holocaust survivors or the like, who are obviously guilty of tax fraud, but might be hard to prosecute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-88949246237362058482012-06-04T10:58:27.815-05:002012-06-04T10:58:27.815-05:00Don't knew what happen to all others in the 25...Don't knew what happen to all others in the 250 dataset or the 4,500 dataset. But do know that some are in the pipeline for (i) potential criminal prosecution (e.g., grand jury going) or (ii) civil adjustments which might not be very pretty.<br /><br />Jack TownsendJackTownsendnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-55518592372231066752012-06-04T10:20:42.750-05:002012-06-04T10:20:42.750-05:00Your stats show 56 taxpayers, and only 30-40 (don&...Your stats show 56 taxpayers, and only 30-40 (don't recall exact number) of them UBS customers out of around 250 who had their UBS info disclosed without notification from Switzerland. What happened to the rest? Did the IRS feel that there were strong indicators of misfeasance but not enough to guarantee conviction, so they were allowed to join OVDI#1 at 20%?<br /><br />And out of the 4,500 others disclosed by UBS, I imagine that a certain number were never notified of disclosure (perhaps because they had moved without giving the bank their new address.) What happened to them? Were they contacted by IRS and given a chance to join OVDI although the IRS already had their information?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-88054072114374533432012-05-31T16:54:05.342-05:002012-05-31T16:54:05.342-05:00when you decide to expose yourself -- make yoursel...when you decide to expose yourself -- make yourself fully naked -- our dear government wants penalty for all offshore accounts -- including RRSP.<br /><br />this is disclosure class 101.ijnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-72696533298259443842012-05-31T14:44:50.192-05:002012-05-31T14:44:50.192-05:00Does it sound like this guy actually did a 'go...Does it sound like this guy actually did a 'going forward' disclosure ? Or maybe even joined the VD program (although I doubt that), but didn't disclose the non UBS account ? <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com