District Court Rejects Summary Judgment for FBAR Civil Willful Penalty (3/12/22; 3/13/22)

In United States v. Schik, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41025 (SD NY 3/8/22), CL here, the Court denied the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment for the FBAR willful penalty. In other cases with more or less similar facts (although Schik has some unusual facts, as I note below), the Government has been able to convince courts that objectively proved facts on the Motion for Summary Judgment (particularly answering “No” to the Schedule B question about foreign accounts) met the expansive civil definition of willfulness for FBAR purposes. But, probably because of the unique facts, the Court rejected the notion that a “No” answer suffices for willfulness on summary judgment. A key excerpt: 

            When Congress included penalties for “willful violations” of Section 5321(a)(5), it explicitly delineated between failures to report that are and are not willful. Willfulness, therefore, must mean something more than mere negligence. The Government’s suggested reading of the word—that willfulness should be found categorically even when an unsophisticated taxpayer did not know of an obligation to report and relied on a tax preparer— would abrogate that distinction. See Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 208 n.53 (1985) (a court “must give effect to every word that Congress used in the statute”); see also United States v. Schwarzbaum, 2020 WL 1316232, at *8 (S.D. Fl. Mar. 20, 2020) (“Imputing constructive knowledge of filing requirements to a taxpayer simply by virtue of having signed a tax return would render the distinction between a non-willful and willful violation in the FBAR context meaningless.”); Jones v. United States, 2020 WL 4390390, at *9 (C.D. Cal. May 11, 2020) (in the FBAR context, “signing a tax return on its own cannot automatically make the taxpayer’s violation ‘willful’ as that would collapse the willfulness standard to strict liability.”).

So, what were the unique facts? The Court has a good discussion in the case (pp. 2-5), but the Introduction to Schik’s opposition to the Motion offers a concise summary (See Dkt entry 38 here):

INTRODUCTION

            Defendant Walter Schik (“Mr. Schik” or the “Defendant”) hereby opposes the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the government because there are numerous disputed issues of material fact in this case. The origination of Mr. Schik’s foreign bank accounts was not the nefarious scheme portrayed in the government’s brief, and the facts and circumstances present in Mr. Schik’s case are readily distinguishable from the cases cited by the government. Mr. Schik was born and grew up in eastern Europe before immigrating to the U.S. after experiencing the horrors of the Holocaust. This deeply traumatic experience has affected Mr. Schik’s entire life and, as relevant in this case, he justifiably believed that it was important to always maintain some funds in Switzerland, a neutral country during World War II, so that they could be accessed in the event of further religious persecution or some other catastrophe. This was Mr. Schik’s sole intent when he established the foreign accounts at issue; there was no intent to evade U.S. tax or reporting obligations. After the accounts were opened, Mr. Schik relinquished almost all control over the accounts to a local asset manager, David Beck, and he did not participate in investment decisions and did not have any understanding about how Mr. Beck structured the accounts. Mr. Schik, who lacks almost any formal education, had no knowledge concerning the offshore asset reporting requirements of U.S. taxpayers; his accountant during the relevant time period did not advise him concerning foreign accounts; and Mr. Schik did not believe that it was necessary to discuss non-U.S.-based accounts with his accountant. As soon as Mr. Schik became aware of his reporting obligations, he applied to the IRS’s Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (“OVDP”) and, even after he was inexplicably rejected from the OVDP, he nevertheless proceeded to file amended tax returns (and thereby incriminated himself and exposed himself to criminal prosecution) and pay back tax and interest on the income from his foreign accounts. These  [*2] factors raise numerous questions of fact with regard to Mr. Schik’s knowledge and intent. Therefore, summary judgment should be denied.

CA6 Rejects Taxpayers Argument for Bankruptcy Discharge Based on Exception to Discharge for Intent to Evade Tax (4/14/21; 4/15/21)

In United States v. Helton (6th Cir. 4/14/21) (unpublished), CA6 here; TN here, the taxpayer, a lawyer, sought to avoid the exception for bankruptcy discharge in 11 USC 523(a)(1)(C) for a debt “with respect to which the debtor . . . willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax.”  The relevant part of the opinion is:

Helton's principal argument, rather, is that § 523(a)(1)(C) requires proof that the debtor acted with “specific intent to evade the tax.” Hawkins v. Franchise Tax Bd., 769 F.3d 662, 670 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus, in Helton's view, the government was required to prove not only that Helton chose to allocate his funds toward Mercedes-Benz sedans and dinners out each night and luxury gifts, rather than towards his taxes; instead, the government was required also to prove that he purchased or paid for those things specifically to avoid paying his taxes. Regardless of whether that is the law in the Ninth Circuit, it is not the law in this one, as shown above. See, e.g., Gardner, 360 F.3d at 561; accord In re Feshbach, 974 F.3d 1320, 1331 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Coney, 689 F.3d 365, 374 (5th Cir. 2012); In re Fegeley, 118 F.3d 979, 984 (3d Cir. 1997). We therefore reject his argument.

I have not tried to track down whether there was Ninth Circuit authority for the distinction as articulated by the Court for Helton’s argument.  In the context of the way the Court explained the distinction, it does not appear to me to be a material distinction.

Added 4/15/21 3:15pm:  Les Book of the Procedurally Taxing Blog reminded me that Lavar Taylor, here, had posted two blog entries on the Ninth Circuit's view of § 523(a)(1)(C):

• What Constitutes An Attempt To Evade Or Defeat Taxes For Purposes Of Section 523(a)(1)(C) Of The Bankruptcy Code: The Ninth Circuit Parts Company With Other Circuits (Part 1) (Procedurally Taxing Blog 9/18/14), here.
• What Constitutes An Attempt To Evade Or Defeat Taxes For Purposes Of Section 523(a)(1)(C) Of The Bankruptcy Code: The Ninth Circuit Parts Company With Other Circuits (Part 2) (Procedurally Taxing Blog 9/19/14), here.

Taxpayer Denied Bankruptcy Discharge For BLIPS Related Tax Liability (8/30/14)

11 U.S.C. Section 523(a)(1)(C), here, provides in relevant part that a taxpayer may not be discharged in bankruptcy for a tax debt if one of two circumstance exist:  (i) "with respect to which the debtor made a fraudulent return" or (ii) the debtor "willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax."

In In re Vaughn, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16417 (10th Cir. 2014), here, the Court denied Vaughn a discharge for his tax debt arising from the bullshit tax shelter (the BLIPS variety).  In so doing, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court and the district court below.

It appears that, in denying the discharge, the courts relied principally upon the second basis for denial of discharge -- "willfully attempted in any manner to evade or defeat such tax."  The 10th Circuit found that Vaughn participated in a shaky shelter and then voluntarily depleted his assets during the long period of time before the Government finally assessed the tax liability.  (Readers will recall that substantial periods of time can elapse from  the time an  unreported tax liability arises and when it finally is assessed.)  The taxpayer claimed that his conduct was negligent at best, but not willful as required by the text of the statute, because it was before the IRS assessed the tax.  The 10th Circuit rejected the argument, holding as it had previously held that assessment of the tax is not required for the denial of discharge to apply.

Although the 10th Circuit apparently did not rely upon the first basis -- the taxpayer made a fraudulent return -- it appears from the history of BLIPS that the return was fraudulent because the BLIPS shelter was fraudulent.  I have noted that in another context -- Section 6501(c)(1), here, which has an unlimited statute of limitations "In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax."  See for the most recent discussion, BASR Briefs On Issue of Unlimited Statute of Limitations for NonTaxpayer Fraud (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 8/27/14), here.  There is no textual requirement in Section 6501(c)(1) that the taxpayer make the fraudulent return; the text only requires that the return be fraudulent.  Taxpayers, of course, argue that, despite the lack of a textual requirement that the taxpayer be complicit on the fraud on the return, the text properly interpreted has an implicit requirement that the taxpayer have known the return was fraudulent and thus made a fraudulent return.  The few courts that have addressed the issue are split, with, as of now, the weight of authority that the taxpayer's fraud is not required.

In any event, the bankruptcy provision does seem textually to require the taxpayer's fraud.  Promoter or preparer fraud without the taxpayer's fraud is not sufficient to deny discharge.  So, that is not an issue.  And, as noted, the 10th Circuit seemed to have relied upon the taxpayer's fraud.  Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit did seem to at least advert to the issue of some culpability on Vaughn's part in filing the return claiming the fraudulent benefits of BLIPS (emphasis supplied):

Second, Appellant argues his "reliance on the advice of KPMG, his longtime tax advisor, that the BLIPS transaction was an aggressive but ultimately legitimate tax position might have been at worst unreasonable under the circumstances, making [Appellant] negligent," but not willful. (Appellant's Opening Br. at 23.) Appellant contends that because he innocently, even if unreasonably, relied on KPMG's advice, he cannot be found to have acted willfully. We find this argument unpersuasive under all of the circumstances in this case, particularly in light of the bankruptcy court's finding that Appellant's assertion of innocent reliance was "simply not credible." In re Vaughn, 463 B.R. at 548.

District Court Denies Bankruptcy Discharge for BLIPS Shelter Investor (4/4/13)

I previously reported on a Bankruptcy Judge's Order applying 11 USC 523(a)(1)(C), here, denying a KPMG BLIPS tax shelter investor a discharge in bankruptcy for the taxes, penalties and interest arising from that misguided adventure.  BLIPS Tax Shelter Investor Denied Bankruptcy Discharge for Fraudulent Return and Evasion (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 1/10/12), here.  The district court has now sustained the Bankruptcy Judge's order.  Vaughn v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45516 (D CO 2013), here.

Key excerpts from the district court's Opinion and Order Affirming Bankruptcy Decision are (most footnotes omitted):

Mr. Vaughn asserts error in the Bankruptcy Court's determinations under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(1)(C) that he: (i) made a fraudulent tax return and (ii) willfully attempted to evade or defeat taxes owed for years 1999 and 2000. The IRS asserts error in the Bankruptcy Court's denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment in which it sought a determination that the taxes owed for 1999 and 2000 were non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(A). The Court begins with Mr. Vaughn's challenges. 

Under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C), tax debts can be excluded from discharge on two alternative grounds: (i) making a fraudulent return or, (ii) willfully attempting to evade or defeat a tax. The Bankruptcy Court determined that Mr. Vaughn's tax debt was excepted from discharge on both grounds. Mr. Vaughn challenges both determinations, but in order for this Court to reverse the finding of non-dischargeableability of the tax debt, Mr. Vaughn must show that both determinations are erroneous. Because the Court finds no error with regard to the Bankruptcy Court's determination that Mr. Vaughn willfully attempted to evade his 1999 and 2000 tax obligations, it is unnecessary to address the interesting issues raised by Mr. Vaughn with regard to the Bankruptcy Court's finding that he filed a fraudulent tax return. For the same reason it is not necessary to explore the issues raised by the IRS in its cross-appeal.