Robert Frank Editorial on Decline in Enforcement Resources and Tax Evasion (11/3/20)

Noted economist Robert H. Frank (Wikipedia here) has written an excellent NYT op-ed: Without More Enforcement, Tax Evasion Will Spread Like a Virus (NYT 10/30/20), here.  Excerpts

Few people enjoy paying taxes, but as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. reminded us, “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” On reflection, most of us therefore offer at least implicit support for penalties against tax evasion — penalties that have little meaning unless backed by significant enforcement resources.

Yet prodded mainly by anti-tax Republicans, Congress has cut the Internal Revenue Service budget steadily since 2011. By 2019, the agency was auditing only one in every 222 individual returns, down from one in 90 in 2011. Similar reductions have occurred for corporate returns, and were proportionately larger for the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations.

These cuts have not saved the government money. The former I.R.S. commissioner John A. Koskinen estimated, for example, that every $1 trimmed from the agency’s budget has resulted in $4 in lost revenue. But this estimate refers only to direct, or first-round, losses. Because the extent to which people comply with tax laws depends strongly on the behavior of others around them, the ultimate revenue losses are certain to be much larger.

* * * *

What the reductions in I.R.S. funding will continue to unleash, then, is a characteristic feature of all behavioral contagion processes: an explosive chain of feedback loops that greatly amplify any initial change in behavior.

Court of Appeals Finds No Harm Attorney's Failure to Assure Client Understood Relevant Conduct for Sentencing Loss Calculations (10/29/30)

In Jones v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33857 (6th Cir. 2020), unpublished, here, the Court by Order denied Jones’ request for a certificate of appealability ("COA") from the district court’s denial of a motion under 28 USC § 2255 to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence.  The Order rejected Jones’ allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, a common complaint in § 2255 motions.

The Court reasoned (cleaned up)

A COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court's denial is based on the merits, the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

Reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's determination that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The performance inquiry requires the defendant to show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. In the context of a guilty plea, the prejudice inquiry requires the defendant to show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. The test is objective, not subjective; and thus, to obtain relief on this type of claim, a petitioner must convince the court that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have  been rational under the circumstances.  With respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, prejudice is established if the movant demonstrates that his sentence was increased by the deficient performance of his attorney.

Reasonable jurists could not debate the district court's ruling that Jones failed to establish prejudice from counsel's alleged failure to advise him that the loss amount would include loss from relevant conduct not charged in the counts to which he pleaded guilty. Jones claimed that he discovered only after reviewing the presentence report that, because of the relevant conduct he would receive a 16-point increase in his offense level under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I). Jones also notes that counsel acknowledged that a psychologist testified on his behalf during sentencing, and that the psychologist explained that Jones had difficulty understanding "how things worked and was often confused. . . about the positions that the government took, as well as some of the things that took place." Therefore, he contends that counsel “should have taken extra steps . . . to ensure that [he] understood [the plea agreement]" before signing it. He also argues that he made a substantial showing that he would not have accepted the plea offer had he been made aware that pleading guilty would increase the amount of restitution by 2 million dollars. Because Jones claims that he would have proceeded to trial had counsel accurately advised him of his sentence exposure, he was required to establish that a decision to reject the plea bargain would have been rational under the circumstances.

Reasonable jurists would agree with the district court's conclusion that, in light of the strong case against Jones and his failure to cite any evidence that he had a viable defense to the twenty-five counts brought against him, he failed to establish that it would have been rational for him to proceed to trial had he known of the potential increase in his offense level and restitution amount. A petitioner must produce contemporaneous evidence that suggests that, absent counsel's allegedly deficient performance, he would have elected to proceed to trial instead of accepting the plea agreement. Moreover, at the plea hearing, Jones admitted the accuracy of the statement of facts attached to his plea agreement, and he acknowledged that the applicable guidelines range was not a guarantee of his eventual sentence. In these circumstances, knowledge that his guidelines range might be higher than anticipated—a fact that would be true regardless of whether he pleaded guilty or was found guilty at trial—would not make it rational for a defendant to abandon his plea agreement and risk conviction on twenty-two additional counts. Reasonable jurists could not debate that Jones failed to establish prejudice.

JAT Comments:

Fourth Circuit Affirms District Court Decision in Tax Crimes Case to Limit Taxpayer's Reading Excerpts From Book on Cheek Willfulness Issue (10/24/20)

In United States v. Gerard, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33341 (4th Circuit 10/22/20), here and govinfo here, the Court affirmed the taxpayer’s conviction for “for conspiracy to commit tax fraud” but remanded for the district court to address the elements of the obstruction of justice enhancement for sentencing purposes.  Although the opinion is an unpublished opinion, I thought the following from the opinion might be interesting to readers:

We further conclude that the district court did not err in barring Gerard from reading three books to the jury in support of his defense that he had a good faith belief that his tax minimization plan was lawful. We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, and will only overturn a ruling that is arbitrary and irrational. United States v. Farrell, 921 F.3d 116, 143 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 269 (2019). Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states that "[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." We agree with the district court that Gerard's request to read all three books would amount to something similar to the presentation of expert testimony, but without the opportunity for the Government to cross-examine the expert. Furthermore, as the district court observed, Gerard did not have to prove that his tax minimization system was lawful, only that his good faith belief in the lawfulness of his system was credible. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201-02 (1991) (holding that a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"). Moreover, as the court observed, Gerard's proposal to read all three books would confuse the jury. We note that, even though the court permitted Gerard to read excerpts from the books, Gerard chose to read excerpts from just one of the three books, suggesting that it was not so imperative that he read each book to the jury.

Corporate Taxpayer (AIG) "Settles" Tax Shelter Litigation Admitting Tax Shelters Were Shams (10/24/20)

The SDNY U.S. Attorney (Acting) issued this stunning press release yesterday:  Acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Settlement Of Tax Shelter Lawsuit Against AIG For Entering Into Sham Transactions Designed To Generate Bogus Foreign Tax Credits (USAO 10/23/20), here.   Key excerpts for this blog entry (most of the release) are:

Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today the settlement of a tax refund lawsuit brought by insurance and financial services company AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. (“AIG”) involving seven cross-border financial transactions that the United States asserted were abusive tax shelters designed to generate bogus foreign tax credits that AIG improperly attempted to use to reduce its tax liabilities in the United States.  AIG filed this tax refund lawsuit in 2009, seeking to recover disallowed foreign tax credits and other taxes related to the 1997 tax year.  The United States obtained overwhelming evidence that these transactions lacked any meaningful economic substance, were devoid of any legitimate business purpose, and instead were designed solely to manufacture hundreds of millions of dollars in tax benefits to which AIG was not entitled.  According to the terms of the settlement, approved yesterday by United States District Judge Louis L. Stanton, AIG agreed that all foreign tax credits that AIG claimed for the 1997 tax year and all later tax years for these same transactions, totaling more than $400 million, would be disallowed in their entirety.  AIG further agreed to pay a 10% tax penalty.

Acting U.S. Attorney Audrey Strauss said:  “AIG created an elaborate series of sham transactions that were designed to do nothing – and in fact did nothing – other than generate hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten tax benefits for AIG.  Our system of taxation is built upon the premise that all citizens and corporations must pay the taxes they owe, no more and no less.  People and companies who game that system to avoid paying their fair share of taxes undermine public trust in our tax laws.  We will continue to be vigilant in holding accountable those who use economically empty transactions to avoid paying their taxes.”

As alleged in filings in Manhattan federal court:

During the mid-1990s, AIG Financial Products Corp. (“AIG-FP”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG, designed, marketed, and entered into seven cross-border structured finance transactions with various foreign banks.  These complicated transactions, involving hundreds of agreements, numerous shell companies, and intricate cash flows, had no economic substance but rather exploited differences in U.S. and foreign tax laws to create profits from U.S. tax benefits.  In particular, the transactions generated more than $400 million in foreign tax credits that AIG used to reduce its U.S. tax liabilities.  The U.S. has a worldwide tax system that taxes companies on income earned abroad, but also grants credits for foreign taxes paid.  AIG, was able to turn a profit by obtaining credits from the U.S. Treasury for foreign taxes it did not actually pay in full.  AIG obtained more than $61 million in foreign tax credits during the 1997 tax year alone, the tax year resolved by the settlement. 

In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued a Notice of Deficiency to AIG that, among other things, disallowed the foreign tax credits AIG had claimed in connection with the seven transactions and asserted a 20% tax penalty.  In 2009, after paying the deficiency, AIG filed a lawsuit against the United States in Manhattan federal court challenging the IRS’s determination and demanding a refund.  In response, the United States asserted that the IRS had correctly disallowed the tax benefits because the transactions had no economic substance, a basic requirement for seeking tax benefits. 

According to the terms of the Settlement, AIG agreed that all foreign tax credits that AIG claimed in connection with the seven cross-border transactions that were the subject of the litigation would be disallowed in full for the 1997 tax year and all subsequent tax years during which the transactions were operating, totaling more than $400 million.  AIG further agreed to pay a 10% penalty.  The settlement allows AIG to retain certain income expense deductions relating to six of the transactions that were structured as borrowings, as well as remove certain amounts related to the transactions from its taxable income.  In addition, the settlement resolves certain of AIG’s tax refund claims unrelated to the cross-border transactions stemming from AIG‘s restatement of its publicly filed financials.

One nuance not in the press release is that the press release suggests that the penalty is 10%.  The IRS originally proposed a substantial understatement penalty and a negligence penalty.  Both of those penalties are 20% but only one can apply, so that the taxpayer's maximum exposure before the settlement was 20%.  Under the settlement, the taxpayer concedes the substantial understatement or negligence penalties for the bullshit transaction.  (See paragraph 7 of the Stipulation and Order of Settlement.)  That might suggest that the settlement could be read to imply some level of merit in the taxpayer's position, although I suspect that, from the Government's perspective, it was viewed that as simply a nuisance cost to the Government to resolve this bullshit litigation without expenditure of resources required to litigate the matter.

Of course, large corporations who should know better making sham (aka bullshit) tax shelter claims are not particularly unusual as I have noted on this blog.  But this litigation has one nuance that jumped out that I had not really focused on before – that is, the role of counsel bringing suits to sustain tax shelters that are shams.  I guess that problem lurked in all of the other civil litigation involving bullshit tax shelters.  But it just hit me here.  (I never personally had to face that issue because over my career of practice, I declined to represent taxpayers or promoters in civil tax cases involving bullshit tax shelters; although I do have an anecdote about that which I recount at the end of the blog.  See JAT Comments par. 2)

The question I ask is how exactly does an attorney sign the initial pleading and otherwise participate in a suit, either in the Tax Court or in one of the refund forums (district court or Court of Federal Claims), alleging that a sham tax shelter is entitled to the claimed tax benefits?  OK, I know, the argument is that sham is in the eye of the beholder so long as the technical tax traps appear to be checked off (even when sometimes they are not)?  The question I ask and cannot answer here is what is the role of the lawyers making such claims in litigation?  But, just think about how much energy (creative and  otherwise), time and resources were spent unnecessarily in creating the sham tax shelter to start with and then marshaling it through the administrative audit process (audit and appeals) and litigation before the taxpayer admitted the whole deal was a sham.  Isn’t there some better way to deploy our resources?

Private Equity Guru Smith Got a Hell of a Deal (10/23/20)

Today, the Wall Street Journal published what, I understand, is called an “explainer” about the Brockman indictment and the Smith nonprosecution agreement (“NPA”).  See Laura Saunders The IRS Reels in a Whale of an Offshore Tax Cheat—and Goes for Another (WSJ 10/23/20), here.  I previously wrote on these events.  One Big Fish Indicted and Lesser Big Fish Achieves NPA for Cooperation (10/16/20), here.  

The WSJ article provides a good bullet point high-level summary of the events.  I write today to provide some nuance to a sound bite quote that I gave for the article.  The quote, at the end, is:  "Jack Townsend, a lawyer who publishes the Federal Tax Crimes blog, says, 'He got a hell of a deal, considering what he did.'"

My statement was based only on the publicly disclosed facts in the NPA and the Statement of Facts (Exhibit A) with the NPA, which are here and here, respectively.  Those publicly disclosed facts may not tell the whole story as to why Smith achieved an NPA rather than some other disposition (I discuss some possible other dispositions below.)  

Just on those facts, Smith’s deal is exceptionally good for him.  He committed years of tax evasion, then attempted to do a Streamlined disclosure (after being rejected from OVDP) where he had to certify nonwillfulness and submit amended returns and delinquent or amended FBARs which he did and which were false.  That pattern, particularly, the second step Streamlined disclosure was just incredibly stupid.  If he had done only the OVDP and been accepted into OVDP, he likely would have avoided prosecution if his OVDP submissions and cooperation were truthful and complete.  Two caveats on that, however: (i) OVDP did not “guarantee” nonprosecution but, as a practical matter it would if the disclosure and cooperation were good (I am not aware of any prosecution of an OVDP participant whose cooperation was truthful and complete); and (ii) his behavior on the subsequent Streamlined suggest at least that his amended return and delinquent or amended FBAR submissions in the posited counterfactual OVDP if it had gotten that far likely would not have been truthful and thus would not have resulted in the key relief generally offered by OVDP – nonprosecution.

What I address today is why, given the facts in the NPA and Statement of Facts, DOJ would have given Smith an NPA for such egregious behavior (by which I don’t mean just the dollars involved, but more importantly his overall behavior to cheat and avoid getting caught with continued lies).

The Statement of Facts and the NPA do not really address that issue, except that in the press release his cooperation was emphasized.  I presume that the cooperation is not only the cooperation in exposing his own criminal conduct but more importantly in indicting and prosecuting Brockman.  So, this raises some speculations / questions.

1. Did Smith get an NPA because the Government did not have the necessary proof to convict Smith and the NPA was the best the Government could do, particularly if it helped nail a bigger fish?  In other words, the facts in the Statement of Facts could have been provable only after Smith’s cooperation after his lawyers negotiated the commitment for an NPA.  Hence, rather than indicting Smith with a weak case, the Government might have been motivated to grant the NPA in order to get his cooperation against Brockman as well as obtain the monetary benefits accorded by the NPA.  That’s a matter of what each party’s hand was as they negotiated Smith’s disposition.  I just don’t know that.

Fourth Circuit Holds Taxpayer Liable for Willful FBAR Penalty (10/21/20; 11/3/20)

In United States v. Horowitz, ___ F.3d ___, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 33074 (4th Cir. 2020), here, the Fourth Circuit held that the taxpayer, who joined OVDP and opted out, was subject to the willful FBAR penalty.  On the issues presented, the Court held:

1. The Court applied the expansive definition of willfulness that has taken hold to mean recklessness, a standard significantly less stringent than the Cheek standard applicable to tax and FBAR crimes that the taxpayer must specifically intend to violate a known legal duty.  In the course of this holding, the court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that finding willfulness only from a false declaration to the Schedule B foreign account question would eviscerate the two tier willful and nonwillful FBAR penalty regime.  In this case, of course, there was more to support willfulness than just the Schedule B false answer.  (My experience is that, with good facts, a no answer or a blank answer to the foreign account question can still avoid for the willful penalty.)
2. The Court rejected the argument that the regulations which had not been updated to include the change in the maximum willful penalty from $100,000 to 50% of the amount in the account barred an FBAR willful penalty exceeding $100,000.  Readers will recall that a couple of early cases so held, but since there the clear trend is to reject the argument.
3. The Court rejected the argument that the penalty had been abated (or the assessment reversed) and thus was not properly assessed.  The facts show some administrative confusion about that, but the Court concluded that the assessment stood and was timely.  [Added 11/3/20 10:00am:  Les Book has an excellent discussion of this aspect of the opinion:  Leslie Book, Circuit Court Weighs in on Meaning of Willfulness, Maximum Penalty and SOL Issues in Important FBAR Case (Procedurally Taxing Blog 11/3/20), here.]

JAT Comments:

One Big Fish Indicted and Lesser Big Fish Achieves NPA for Cooperation (10/16/20)

I write today about two related developments involving the tax misdeeds of private equity moguls that readers will have probably already read about in the popular news:  (i) Robert T. Brockman the biggest mogul and alleged tax cheat of the two was indicted in the Northern District of California (the indictment is here and the Court Listener Docket Entries is here), with an alleged criminal amount of $2 billion (revised at 5:00pm - I understand this is the omitted income amount rather than the bottom line tax loss); and (ii) Robert F. Smith, the smaller mogul (but still a large one) and now admitted tax cheat, reached a nonprosecution agreement (“NPA”) wherein he agreed to pay $139 million in tax and penalties (presumably with interest thereon as appropriate (the US Attorney’s press release on the NPA is here, the NPA and an Exhibit are linked on the press release)).

So, what’s this commotion all about?  I have not studied the indictment in detail, but here are key points (some with my inferences) that I derive from either the press release and two articles (Kadhim Shubber  & Miles Kruppa, Billionaire Robert Brockman charged in $2bn tax evasion case (Financial Times 10/15/20), here; and Jaclyn Peiser, A Texas billionaire evaded $2 billion in taxes, feds say. Now he’s charged in the ‘largest-ever’ tax fraud case (WAPO 10/16/20), here)

• This is said to be the largest tax fraud case ever.  The criminal cases against the Son-of-Boss professional enablers involved, in the aggregate more dollars, but I assume the this is the largest single taxpayer (as opposed to enabler of multiple taxpayers) case.
• Smith is not named in the indictment except by pseudonym which is typical for uncharged co-conspirators.  Smith has agreed to cooperate to achieve his NPA.  (The NPA is linked in the press release linked above.)  In addition to cooperation against Brockman and perhaps others, Smith agreed to pay about $139 million in tax and penalties.  Smith achieved some positive notoriety in 2019 by agreeing to “pay off all the student loans for the graduating class of Morehouse College, an all-male, historically Black college in Atlanta.  (WAPO article.)  I discuss aspects of the NPA below in my comments.  (I wonder whether Smith's generosity at the time was motivated in significant part to contribute in some way to achieving an NPA.)
• The pattern alleged for Brockman’s offshore evasion is just a variation of a theme that we have seen in offshore tax evasion but ramped up with many intrigues outlined in the indictment.
• The charges also included allegations that between 2008 and 2010, Brockman lied to investors and allegedly bilked them out of nearly $68 million. (WAPO article.)
• Smith attempted a voluntary disclosure in 2014 but apparently was already on the IRS radar screen and was rejected.  He probably attempt to do a voluntary disclosure because one or more of the offshore banks had turned information over to DOJ Tax or the IRS.
• The US attorney said Mr Smith had used a Houston lawyer to direct his offshore nominees.  The Houston lawyer is not named.

The counts charged against Brockman are from the attachment to the indictment (some of these have multiple counts):

• 18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy (Offense and Defraud)
  5 yrs prison, $250k fine, 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 26 U.S.C. § 7201 – Tax Evasion
  5 yrs prison, $250k fine, 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment, costs of prosecution;
• 31 U.S.C. §§ 5314 & 5322(b) –FBAR Violations
  10 yrs prison, $500k fine, 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1343 – Wire Fraud Affecting a Financial Institution;
  30 yrs prison, $1M fine, 5 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) – Concealment Money Laundering;
  20 yrs prison, $500k fine or twice the gross gain or loss (whichever is greater), 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(ii) – Tax Evasion Money Laundering;
  20 yrs prison, $500k fine or twice the gross gain or loss (whichever is greater), 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i) – International Concealment Money Laundering;
  20 yrs prison, $500k fine or twice the gross gain or loss (whichever is greater), 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(B) – Evidence Tampering;
  20 yrs prison, $250k fine, 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) – Destruction of Evidence;
  20 yrs prison, $250k fine, 3 yrs sup. rel., $100 special assessment;

Even without considering the multiple counts the concept of stacking will tell readers that the maximum sentence if conviction on all counts is around 130 years. (revised 10/17/20 11:40am: my actual calculations of all counts shows 800 years maximum incarceration). Of course, the Sentencing Guidelines and Booker variance (if appropriate) will produce a much smaller actual sentence.  My rough and ready calculation of the offense level considering only $2 billion tax loss and acceptance of responsibility (although he has not accepted yet) shows a sentencing range of 168-210 months with good time credit of 21.6-27 months.  revised at 5pm: this is true even if $2 billion was the omitted income amount because it would almost certainly produce at tax loss of $550 million, the top of the table and even if the tax loss were less, the Guidelines calculation would not be reduced much).  

(Added 9:30pm):  The following is a summary of key facts (selective) from the Smith NPA Exhibit A, Statement of Facts:  Foreign Bank notified Smith of intent to participate in the Swiss Bank Program that would require outing Smith.  Smith filed preclearance request for OVDP.  The preclearance request was denied.  Smith filed a false FBAR omitting accounts and filed income tax return omitting income and including false Form 8275.  Smith attempted Streamline disclosure, filing false FBARs and false income tax returns.  (Although not stated in the Statement of Facts, the Streamlined filing would have required that Smith represent that his conduct was not willful, a representation that based on other admission would have been false.)  These actions were willful.

JAT Further Comments:

District Court Grants Summary Judgment for Government on § 7431 Wrongful Disclosure Claims to Third Party Recordkeepers but Not Other Third Party Summonses (10/13/20)

In Williams Dev. & Constr. v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187212 (D. S.D. 10/8/20), CL here, the IRS Criminal Investigation (“CI”) agent issued 15 IRS administrative summonses falling into two relevant categories:  (i) third party recordkeeper summonses (here to financial institutions) and (ii) third party summonses that are not third party recordkeeper summonses.  The summonses stated that they were issued "In the Matter of Craig A. or Craig Arthur Williams." From the opinion, it appears that Williams is a Houston, TX, based taxpayer and has several related companies.  The IRS subsequently withdrew two summonses.  The taxpayer and related companies originally petitioned the district court in South Dakota to quash all of the summonses.  One problem on the motion to quash was that there was only one summonsee in South Dakota, the venue in which the taxpayer sought to quash all summonses.  Thus, the action to quash could continue only as to the South Dakota summonsee, Citibank, N.A.  (See prior Magistrate’s Order dated 12/10/19, here.)

While the case was pending, the taxpayer filed an amended complaint including a claim for damages under § 7431 for unauthorized disclosure of return information.  The new claim was that the summonses (all of them) improperly disclosed taxpayer return information in violation of § 6103.  In relevant part, the claim was that the disclosure of (i) the taxpayer subject to the investigation, (ii) the taxpayer’s address, (iii) the IRS agent's identity as a CI agent and (iv) the taxpayer identification number.  The Government moved for summary judgment.  The Court mostly granted the IRS motion but denied as to disclosures of tax identification numbers to the third party (i.e., nonrecordkeeper) summonses.

The discussion of the issues resolved in the opinion may be summarized:

• All of the items (subject of the investigation, fact of CI investigation and taxpayer identification) are return information.  So, the question is whether the disclosures were authorized under § 6103(k)(6), called the investigatory purposes exception.  As explained by the Court, “The investigatory purposes exception authorizes IRS employees to ‘disclose return information’ in connection with their official duties relating to a criminal tax investigation ‘to the extent that such disclosure is necessary in obtaining information, which is not otherwise reasonably available.’”  Further,

New IRM provision on Offers in Compromise Including FBAR Penalties (10/8/20)

I just picked up this provision in the IRM, here:

5.8.4.24.2 (09-24-2020)

Foreign Bank and Financial Reporting (FBAR) Assessments

An offer may be submitted which includes FBAR assessments or a taxpayer who submitted an offer to compromise their tax liabilities also has assessments based on FBAR. Since, the IRS does not have authority to compromise assessments based on FBAR, the taxpayer should be requested to submit an amended offer to remove FBAR liabilities which are included on the Form 656.

Note: FBAR penalties are assessed under Title 31 and do not appear in IDRS.

If the taxpayer has a liability for assessments under FBAR, an offer for tax liabilities other than the FBAR may be investigated. During the review of the taxpayer’s financial information, the OE/OS should conduct additional investigation actions to determine if the taxpayer continues to have assets outside the United States. Review the ICS history to determine what research may have been conducted by a field revenue officer. The OE/OS may also issue an other investigation (OI) to an ATAT or International RO group to research FinCEN and/or CBRS to assist in identifying current foreign assets in which they retain an interest.

Note: The taxpayer may also have pending assessments related to Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative.

If the taxpayer is unable or unwilling to submit an amended offer removing the FBAR liabilities, the offer should be closed as a processable return.

JAT Comments:

1.  I am not sure how or if compromises of the FBAR penalties may be achieved.  I assume that there is some way to do that outside the IRS processes for tax liabilities.

2.  The known route to compromises of tax liabilities may be a side benefit of avoiding an FBAR penalty assessment under the various IRS programs (e.g., OVDP and Streamlined) where a substitute penalty is assessed as a miscellaneous tax penalty (sometimes called the “in lieu of” penalty).

This blog is cross-posted on the Federal Tax Procedure Blog, here.

Second Circuit Affirms Conviction of Lawyer Offshore Account Enabler (10/4/20)

In United States v. Little, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31384 (2d Cir. 9/30/20), here, the Court affirmed the conviction and sentencing of Michael Little, a lawyer who enabled the Seggerman family to cheat on their taxes, using in part failure to file FBARs.  I have written on Little before (see blogs on him, including in some blogs the Seggermans), here

I discuss here only two points from the opinion.

1. Willfulness.

The Court rejected Little’s Cheek defense that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he knew the legal duty.  The Court handled the defense summarily (Slip Op. pp. 5-6):

            We conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury verdict on each of the challenged counts. In a nutshell, Little contends that he merely misunderstood the byzantine tax code. But Little is a British-trained barrister admitted to the New York Bar with a quarter-century of experience in complex international financial transactions who, for much of his life, has claimed German domicile for tax [*7]  purposes. A reasonable juror could easily conclude that the failures of such a sophisticated professional to report his income to the IRS, including compensation from the Seggerman family, and to report foreign bank accounts into which his compensation was funneled, were willful acts. See United States v. MacKenzie, 777 F.2d 811, 818 (2d Cir. 1985) (permitting the inference of "knowledge of the law" from the "[d]efendants' backgrounds," including education). Similarly, Little's sophistication supports a conclusion that he was willfully misleading the Seggerman family's accountants when he informed them that the transfers from Lixam Proviso were merely "gifts from a kind benefactor from overseas" and not distributions.

2. Jury Instructions on Conscious Avoidance / Willful Blindness

The Court rejected Little’s claim that the conviction should be reversed because the Court improperly instructed the jury on conscious avoidance (usually called willful blindness, but the Second Circuit often uses conscious avoidance).  Again, the Court rejects the defense summarily as follows (Slip Op. 6):

First, Little challenges the "conscious avoidance" instructions on the failure to file return counts, the failure to file FBAR count, and the conspiracy count; and second, that the district court's instructions as to willfulness erroneously converted the standard into a reasonableness standard. Conscious avoidance instructions are permissible only when the defendant mounts a defense that he lacked "some specific aspect of knowledge required for conviction" and "a rational juror may reach the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware of a high probability of the fact in dispute and consciously avoided confirming that fact." United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 89 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, each predicate is met: Little defended himself by claiming ignorance of his obligations under the Tax Code and, because of Little's legal education and the relative straightforwardness of his obligations, a reasonable juror could conclude that Little was aware of a high probability that his actions were unlawful.

 So, in this case, the conscious avoidance / willful blindness instruction was properly given.

 JAT Comments:

ICIJ Investigations In the News - Panama Papers and Suspicious Activity Reports (9/22/20; 9/25/20)

I offer two related items in which the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (“ICIJ”) is involved.  I have written on ICIJ with respect to the so-called “Panama Papers” which involved ICIJ’s investigation into offshore accounts via access to and disclosure of the Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca’s files helping tax evaders, including persons subject to U.S. tax.  Most readers of this blog will already be familiar generally with the Panama Papers.  

1. Yesterday, DOJ posted this release:  “U.S. Taxpayer in Panama Papers Investigation Sentenced to Prison (DOJ 9/21/20), here.  The defendant, Harald Joachim von der Goltz (also identified with several pseudonyms) pled guilty to “one count of conspiracy to commit tax evasion; one count of wire fraud; one count of money laundering conspiracy; four counts of willful failure to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, FinCEN Reports 114; and two counts of false statements.”  The pattern is familiar.  Von der Goltz conspired with others to conceal assets and income (defraud / Klein conspiracy), using offshore accounts and shell companies.  He was assisted by Mossack Fonseca and others, including a Panamanian lawyer and a U.S. accountant.

2. ICIJ is at it again having gained access to a trove of FinCEN Suspicious Activity Reports that indicate some inattention by major banks and perhaps FinCEN who should be paying attention and even likely violations of money laundering, tax and related laws. The entry page for ICIJ’s revelations is here.  See also ICIJ’s the following ICIJ pages for further information:

• FAQs on “What is the FinCEN Files investigation?”, here.
• About Suspicious Activity Reports, here.
• About the FinCEN Files investigation, here.

The latter article summarizes:

The FinCEN Files investigation was able to trace banks’ roles in hiding money looted from government treasuries, scammed from pensioners, and generated through drug sales, illegal gold mining and other illegal activities.

The findings expose – from the inside – the consequences of allowing banks themselves to lead the world’s anti-money laundering defenses against kleptocracy, crime and terror, even as they earn huge profits from these same malefactors.

They also show how laundered money provides the lifeblood for corrupt authoritarian regimes and the enemies of democracy worldwide.

The Treasury Department documents reveal how major banks continued to move staggering sums of suspect cash even while on criminal probation after highly touted money-laundering crackdowns by U.S. and U.K. authorities.

ICIJ’s analysis of the FinCEN Files and U.S. authorities’ enforcement actions indicates that imposing fines and deferring prosecutions of banks and declining to prosecute bank executives hasn’t stopped banks from continuing to profit from moving suspect transactions

3.  (Added 9/25/20 11:30am).  Relating to Item 1 above, Richard Gaffey, aka Dick Gaffey, 76, the accountant / enabler for von den Goltz and other offshore tax cheats was sentenced by the same judge on 9/24/20 "to 39 months in prison for wire fraud, tax fraud, money laundering, aggravated identity theft, and other charges."  See DOJ Press Release, titled U.S. Accountant in Panama Papers Investigation Sentenced to Prison (9/24/20), here.  As described in the press release, Gaffey was a bad actor as enabler of offshore and related tax cheating.

JAT Comments:

District Court Grants Government Summary Judgment on FBAR Civil Willful Penalty (9/19/20)

In United States v. Toth, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169173 (D. Mass. 2020), CL here, the Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment that Toth was liable for the FBAR civil willful penalty.  The holdings break no new ground, so I just list the holdings:

1. The maximum penalty is the greater 50% of the account(s) that should have been reported or  $100,000, rather than being capped at $100,000.  This is the mainstream holding (after a couple of early aberrations).  (Slip Op. 7-10.)

2. The submissions on the motion satisfied the Government’s burden to prove Toth’s failure to file FBAR for 2007 was willful.  (Slip Op. 10-12.)

3. Lenity does not apply to reduce the amount of the willful penalty.  (Slip Op. 12-13.)

4. The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines prohibition does not apply. (Slip Op. 13-18.)

5. The penalty does not violate Due Process. (Slip Op. 18-19.)

The CL docket entries are here.

Prior blog entries on the Toth case (in reverse chronological order) are:

• In Willful FBAR Collection Suit, District Court Rejects Reconsideration of Finding of FBAR Willfulness As Discovery Sanction (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 12/28/19), here.
• Government FBAR Willful Penalty Suit Survives Motion to Dismiss (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 5/9/17), here.

District Court Holds Failure to Properly Report Foreign Accounts on a Fifth Amendment FBAR Is Subject to FBAR Willful Penalty (9/18/20)

In United States v. Bernstein, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167278 (E.D. N.Y. 2020), CL here and GS here, the Court granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment determining that the defendants, husband and wife (“Bernsteins”), were each subject to the willful FBAR penalty.  Those interested in the motions (and commotions) can find it in the Court Listener docket entries, here, where the motions are available free.

The key facts are;  For many years prior to 2010, the year for which the willful FBAR penalties were assessed, the Bernsteins had foreign accounts.  For the per-2010 years, they did not file FBARs, answered “no” to the Form 1040 Schedule B question about the foreign accounts, and did not report the income from the foreign accounts.  Over the years, they did not tell their accountant about the foreign accounts because they wanted to keep the accounts secret. That conduct, the Court found on summary judgment, was to cheat on their U.S. taxes.

They had the misfortune of having selected UBS as their foreign bank (although they moved the accounts into a single account at Bank Sal Oppenheim after they realized that UBS was caving to Government pressure as readers of this blog already know).  The following series of events then occurred:

Daniel Bernstein later consulted with a U.S. tax attorney, who told him that it was "nothing serious" because the account held "only a million dollars" and therefore the Government would not likely pursue it. Furthermore, Nemirovski, who consulted with a Swiss attorney, conveyed to Mr. Bernstein that the attorney had assured him that their account information had not been turned over to the IRS. Thus, the Bernsteins decided not to take any action in response to the letter and, specifically, not to participate in the Government's voluntary disclosure program.

In April 2011, the Government advised the Bernsteins that it was auditing their 2007 tax return. By that time, the Bernsteins were aware of publicity about the Government's prosecution of UBS account holders. They returned to the U.S. tax attorney who had told them not to worry two years earlier, but this time he told them, "I can't help you; you need a white-collar criminal attorney." He referred them to Lawrence S. Feld, Esq., who is known for his white-collar practice with a specialty in tax prosecutions, and the Bernsteins retained him.

Attorney Feld effectively disagreed with the prior decision not to participate in the voluntary disclosure program. He found the facts as presented to him "deeply disturbing" and believed that there was a "substantial risk" of criminal prosecution. He advised the Bernsteins to file an FBAR for the 2010 tax year in which they would invoke their privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He prepared an addendum to the FBAR describing the basis for the privilege in which the Bernsteins offered to make more detailed disclosures if they received use immunity from criminal prosecution. In addition, the Bernstein's 2010 tax return and Schedule B invoked the Fifth Amendment with regard to any questions about foreign accounts.

Attorney Feld believed that this would protect the Bernsteins from criminal prosecution, although they still might be required "to pay [a] fine." The Bernsteins followed his advice and filed an FBAR for the year 2010 in which they did not provide information about the accounts, instead, in the spaces calling for account information, inserting "Fifth Amendment" in answer to each question. At their depositions, the Bernsteins testified as to their belief, based on the advice from Attorney Feld, that by submitting the FBAR in this manner, they had complied with the disclosure requirements for 2010.

The advice given by Attorney Feld appears to have been sound as there is no suggestion in the record that the Bernsteins are subjects or targets of a criminal investigation. However, in May 2017, the IRS assessed a penalty in the amount of $262,288.50 each for the 2010 tax year. 

The Government brought this collection suit  for the FBAR willful penalties.

Mr. Feld, the attorney advising the Bernsteins to file Fifth Amendment FBARs, is a prominent tax lawyer practicing in the criminal tax arena and is  a co-author of Ian Comisky,  Lawrence Feld,  Steven Harris, Tax Fraud and Evasion (Thomson Reuters), here.

Updated CTM Chapter on Tax Related Conspiracies (9/17/20)

DOJ Tax has updated its Criminal Tax Manual (“CTM”) chapter 23.00 titled Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud the United States (Revised September 2020), here.  I have reviewed the chapter very cursorily.  Although I did not compare the old and new versions, except in two instances noted below, I don’t think much has changed except to add some recent cases in chain citations or in examples.  In identifying items of interest, I leaved through the whole chapter (60 pages) and did searched for year from 2012 through 2010.  Here are my quick comments.:

1. 23.04[2][a] Limitation on Naming Unindicted Co-conspirators, p. 5.  Prosecutors should not name in the indictment unindicted co-conspirators, citing Justice Manual 9-11.30 (April 2018). “The recommended practice in such cases is to merely allege that the defendant ‘conspired with another  person or persons known’ and supply the identity, if requested, in a bill of particulars.”

2. 23.07[2][c] Overbreadth Concerns, pp. 42-43. Not sure if this is new but it is a subject I have been interested in).  Discusses the interpretation of the defraud clause which, in United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 571 U.S. 819 (2013), the Second Circuit expressed “skepticism” about the correctness as an original matter of the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation of the defraud clause in Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924).  I discussed that aspect of Coplan in Coplan #1 - Panel Questions Validity of Klein Conspiracy (Federal Tax Crimes Blog12/1/12), here.

3. 23.07[2][d] Precedent Governing Different Statutes, pp. 43-44.  This is new, generated by the holding in Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018)  that tax obstruction, § 7212(a), requires knowledge of a pending proceeding.  Some defendants argued that, because of potential overlapping and overbreadth concerns, Marinello’s pending proceeding required should apply to the defraud / Klein conspiracy.  The position of the Government is that that element of § 7212(a) does not apply to defraud / Klein conspiracies.  The Government’s position has been sustained in the cases.  The section discusses two 2020 cases:  United States v. Atilla, 966 F. 3d 118 (2d Cir. 2020); and Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018).  I discussed the Flynn case Eighth Circuit Holds that Marinello Pending Proceeding Nexus in § 7212(a) Does Not Apply to Defraud / Klein Conspiracy (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 8/17/20), here. 

Second Circuit Applies the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine to Overcome the Fifth Amendment's Act of Production Doctrine (9/15/20)

In United States v. Fridman, 974 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2020), CA2 here and GS here, the Court held that the Government had overcome Fridman’s claim of Fifth Amendment privilege (via Act of Production doctrine) under the foregone conclusion doctrine which requires “the Government must establish with reasonable particularity its knowledge as to (1) existence of the documents, (2) the taxpayer's possession or control of the documents and (3) the authenticity of the documents.” Fridman, Slip Op. 13.  The Court also held that a “traditional trust” is a collective entity that could not assert a Fifth Amendment privilege.

I focus here on the Act of Production Doctrine under which production can be testimonial and the exception known as the foregone conclusion doctrine.  The Court discusses and applies these concepts at Slip Op. 13-29.  Readers can study the opinion for the particular application of the law to the facts.  I thought that it would be most helpful to most readers to excerpt the general discussion of the applicable law.  I do caution that the Court calls it the Act of Production Privilege; the privilege involved is the Fifth Amendment privilege; Act of Production is is not a separate privilege but a doctrine as to a particular application of the Fifth Amendment privilege.   In this excerpt, I have substantially cleaned up for easier readability (footnotes omitted):

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself. U.S. Const. amend. V. In Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 409-11 (1976), the Supreme Court defined the contours of the Fifth Amendment as it applies to document requests. The Court held that documents voluntarily prepared prior to the issuance of a summons were not compelled testimony, so there was no Fifth Amendment protection for the contents of these records. At the same time, however, the Court recognized a narrow privilege against the act of production. Because producing documents tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer as well as the taxpayer's belief that the papers are those described in the subpoena, the Court concluded that the act of production could, in some cases, communicate incriminatory statements and thus may fall under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination; but the Court hinted that such a determination would be conditioned on the facts and circumstances of particular cases. Similarly, when a defendant must make extensive use of the contents of his own mind in identifying the hundreds of documents responsive to the requests in the subpoena, he or she contributes to a "link in the chain" of their prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege. United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 42-43 (2000).

The act-of-production privilege is not an absolute one. Fridman challenges the district court's ruling that two exceptions to the act-of-production privilege permitted enforcement of the requests at issue in this case.

I. The Foregone Conclusion Doctrine

IRS Continues Efforts to Crack Cryptocurrency (9/15/20)

The IRS is offering to pay private contractors who can ““reliably produce useful results on a variety of real-world CI cryptocurrency investigations involving Monero and/or Lightning.”  Kelly Phillips Erb, IRS Will Pay Up To $625,000 If You Can Crack Monero, Other Privacy Coins (Forbes 9/14/20), here.  I don’t expect readers of this blog to jump at the opportunity, but readers of this blog should be aware of this and related developments that constrict taxpayers’ ability to hide untaxed income in cryptocurrency.  

Key excerpts:

The IRS has made no secret that it believes that taxpayers are not correctly reporting cryptocurrency transactions. An IRS dive into the data showed that for the 2013 through 2015 tax years, when IRS matched data collected from forms 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets, which were filed electronically, they found that just 807 individuals reported a transaction using a property description likely related to bitcoin in 2013; in 2014, that number was only 893; and in 2015, the number fell to 802.

Cryptocurrency Compliance Efforts

A new cryptocurrency compliance measure for taxpayers was introduced in 2019 in the form of a checkbox on the top of Schedule 1, Additional Income and Adjustments to Income (Schedule 1 is used to report income or adjustments to income that can't be entered directly on the front page of form 1040). And in 2020, the IRS noted that it will post a cryptocurrency question right on the front page of your Form 1040.

In 2019, the IRS also announced that it was sending letters to taxpayers who might have failed to report income and pay the resulting tax from virtual currency transactions or did not report their transactions properly. The names of these taxpayers were obtained through various ongoing IRS compliance efforts.

* * * *

About Privacy Coins

Tax Travails of the Rich (Perhaps Famous) Enablers of the Rich (Perhaps Famous) (9/8/20)

USAO D NJ issues a press release, Former Luxury Car CEO and Luxury Watch Dealer Admit Tax Charges in Connection with Scheme to Misallocate Limited Edition Sports Cars, here.

Excerpts:

The former chief executive officer [Maurizio Parlato, 58] of a New Jersey-based importer of Italian luxury cars admitted today that he failed to report to the IRS as income kickback payments he received for misallocating limited edition sports cars, Attorney for the United States Rachael Honig announced.

A luxury watch dealer [Gigi Knowle, 69] also admitted failing to report to the IRS commission he received for helping facilitate the unauthorized sale of one of those limited edition sports cars.    

* * * *

Parlato was a resident of Florida and served as the CEO of a company (Company B) based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, from 2002 to 2009. Company B was responsible for distributing automobiles that were produced by a luxury automobile manufacturer (Company A) based in Maranello, Italy. Company B distributed Company A’s luxury automobiles in the Western Hemisphere through dealers based in the Americas.

Company A produced several highly desired automobile models in small quantities. Parlato had some measure of authority over the allocations of those limited edition automobiles.  In 2013, Company A announced it was creating its most exclusive model to date: a “supercar,” limited to only 500 units and carrying a manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) of approximately $1.4 million. Company A and Company B established a formula to determine which customers would be placed on the approved list to buy a supercar. 

After resigning as CEO of Company B, Parlato assisted Company B dealers and supercar purchasers in misallocating supercars in exchange for kickback payments. Between 2015 and 2017, Parlato received approximately $2.8 million from Company B dealers and supercar purchasers in exchange for, among other things, assisting them in misallocating supercars to customers who were not on the list of approved purchasers. Parlato admitted that he failed to report the $2.8 million in kickback payments he received as income on his federal individual income tax returns. Parlato also admitted that he attempted to hide some of these funds from the IRS by depositing them in a bank account in Spain and failing to disclose the existence of that bank account.  Parlato admitted that he avoided paying more than $1.1 million in taxes.

Knowle also received payments in connection with his role in misallocating a supercar.  In 2015, Knowle lived in Florida and worked as a luxury watch dealer. That year, Knowle assisted Parlato in facilitating the sale of a supercar to another individual who was not on the approved list. Knowle received approximately $560,000 as commission for his role in the sale, some of which Knowle distributed to Parlato and others who were also involved in misallocating the supercar to the unapproved purchaser. Knowle failed to disclose the commission on his personal income tax returns. Knowle admitted that he avoided paying approximately $175,000 in taxes. 

District Court Sustains FBAR Willful Penalty But Rejects Fraudulent Failure to File Penalty for Income Tax (9/1/20)

In United States v. DeMauro (D. N.H. Dkt. 17-cv-640-JL Order and Verdict After Bench Trial dtd. 8/28/20), CL here, the Court sustained the FBAR willful penalty but rejected the fraudulent failure to file penalty.  In both cases, in broad strokes the conduct penalized is the same.  If that statement is correct, the difference in outcome is based on the differing burdens of persuasion.  The Government must prove application of the FBAR willful penalty by a preponderance of the evidence; the Government must application of the fraudulent failure to file penalty by clear and convincing evidence.

The willful FBAR penalty requires that the conduct penalized (failure to report) be willful.  In the FBAR civil penalty context, the Courts have held willfulness is (i) specific knowing failure to file (more or less the Cheek standard) or (ii) willful blindness or reckless disregard of the obligation to report.

The fraudulent failure to file penalty, like the civil fraud penalty for filed returns companion in § 6663, requires fraud.  The following is from my Federal Tax Procedure Book in discussing civil fraud under § 6663, but the same applies for the fraudulent failure to file:

The Code does not define fraud, but it may be viewed as the civil counterpart of criminal tax evasion in § 7201. n1 Examples of how courts have stated civil fraud under § 6663 are:  (i)  civil fraud requires “intentional commission of an act or acts for the specific purpose of evading tax believed to be due and owing”; n2 and (ii) civil fraud requires that “the taxpayer have intended to evade taxes known to be due and owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes and that is an underpayment.”n3  In making the determination, as with criminal cases, courts will often look to certain common patterns indicating fraud–referred to as badges of fraud, such as unreported income, failure to keep adequate books, dealing in cash, etc.n4  The key differences between the two is that § 6663 is a civil penalty and has a lower burden of proof (clear and convincing rather than beyond a reasonable doubt) as I note later.
   n1 Anderson v. Commissioner, 698 F.3d 160, 164 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 2797, 133 S. Ct. 2797 (2013) (“the elements of evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 6663 are identical.”).
   n2 Erikson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-194.
   n3 Nelson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-49; Zell v. Commissioner, 763 F. 2d 1139, 1142-1143 (3rd Cir. 1985) (“Fraud means "actual, intentional wrongdoing, and the intent required is the specific purpose to evade a tax believed to be owing.”); and Fiore v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-21 (“Fraud is the ‘willful attempt to evade tax’” and using the criminal law concept of willful blindness to find the presence of civil fraud; note that, in the criminal law, the concept of willful blindness goes by several names.)
   n4 E.g., Kosinski v. Commissioner, 541 F.3d 671, 679-80 (6th Cir. 2008).  For use of a negative inference from assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege in concluding that the IRS had met its burden of proving civil fraud by clear and convincing evidence, see Loren-Maltese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-214.