Government Suit to Enforce JDS to Offshore Promoter (5/29/22)

In United States v. Wessell (S.D. Fla. Case 22-cv-60988), Cl dkt entries here, the Government filed under seal a request for authorization of a John Doe Summons (“JDS”) to Kevin W. Wessell and related entities.  The Government had filed similar JDS’s in other jurisdictions for related summonsees.  The Government now files a petition to enforce the summons (JDS) issued to Wessell.  (See dkt entry 1, dated 5/24/22, here.)  The Government also filed a Brief in Support (dkt entry 3, dated 5/24/22, here (15 pages) with supporting documents including an IRS declaration here (124 pages) and certain other exhibits, including a privilege log of 482 pages).

The Brief summarizes the IRS’s concerns about Mr. Wessell as follows (pp. 1-2, footnotes omitted):

            On September 26, 2018, the IRS served a summons on Mr. Wessell. Exhibit 1 (Cincotta Decl.) ¶ 10. The purpose of the summons is to identify the clients of the Wessell Group, a sprawling enterprise operated by Mr. Wessell whose activities bear “the hallmarks of offshore tax evasion.” Id., Attachment C ¶ 27.1

            In particular, the Wessell Group creates foreign entities and bank accounts in tax havens such as the Cook Islands and Nevis in order to help United States taxpayers hide their money. Id. ¶¶ 19–49. The Wessell Group equips its customers with nominee directors and officers, and it even provides them with suggested avenues for circumventing court orders to repatriate funds. Id. ¶¶ 32–38. Based on extensive evidence outlined by the United States in a 2018 filing, this Court has already concluded that “there is a reasonable basis for believing” that the Wessell Group’s customers “may fail or may have failed to comply with the internal revenue laws,” which require taxpayers to report their worldwide income and pay associated taxes. See In re Tax Liabilities of John Does, No. 0:18-cv-62135- WPD, ECF No. 6 at 1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 13, 2018).

            The IRS summons required Mr. Wessell to produce all documents related to United States taxpayers who, between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017, used the Wessell Group to “establish, maintain, operate, or control: any foreign financial account or other asset; any foreign corporation, company, trust, foundation, or other legal entity; or any foreign or domestic financial account or other asset in the name of a foreign entity.” Exhibit 1 (Cincotta Decl.) ¶ 11 & Attachment D. The deadline for compliance was October 26, 2018. Id. ¶ 9.

 Once the JDS was issued, the concern addressed in the petition to enforce is whether Wessell properly complied with the summons.  The Government has concerned about whether Wessell produced the summonsed records or properly accounted for the summonsed records in a privilege log.  Suffice it to say that the number of potential documents within the scope of the summons is quite large.

Things that caught my attention include the following:

Brockman Found Competent to Stand Trial (5/24/22)

In the gorilla of tax crimes cases, United States v. Brockman (S.D. Tex. Crim  4:21-CR-9), CL Docket Entries here, the Court yesterday denied Brockman’s attempt to avoid trial by feigning, so the Court found, incompetence.  The Memorandum Opinion and Order (“Order”) so holding is here (Dkt # 263).  The conclusion (pp. 41-42) is:

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the Government has met its burden of establishing that Defendant Robert T. Brockman is competent to stand trial. In so finding, the Court is very mindful that Brockman is an elderly person who has Parkinson’s Disease, which is a neurodegenerative disorder, and has suffered from some degree of cognitive impairment. However, the evidence before the Court shows that Brockman is also an extremely intelligent person with both a high cognitive reserve and history of malingering for secondary gain. The Government has introduced compelling evidence showing that Brockman exaggerated his cognitive symptoms when he was being examined by medical professionals in the past; and Brockman’s performance on validity tests—some of them administered by his own neuropsychological expert—indicates that he continues to exaggerate impairment. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant Robert T. Brockman competent to stand trial.

With this diversion behind for now, the case can proceed through other pretrial steps (including, certainly, further diversions for a defendant with the deepest of pockets to afford such diversions to delay or avoid justice) and go to trial.

I do not further discuss the Order because there are no exceptional criminal tax issues in the Order.  Just a guy trying to avoid trial as if he were a fugitive from justice.

Unposting of Blog Entry (5/21/22)

Earlier, I posted a blog entry on the Federal Tax Crimes Blog that should have been posted on the Federal Tax Procedure Blog.  I have now moved that blog entry to the Federal Tax Procedure Blog.  The blog entry is now Adjudications of Agency Actions and the Right to Jury Trial (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 5/21/22), here.  Sorry to readers for that mistake.

Solicitor General Acquiesces in Bittner Petition for Cert on Issue of FBAR Nonwillful Penalty Per Form or Per Account (5/19/22)

I previously discussed United States v. Bittner, 19 F.4th 734 (5th Cir. 11/30/21), CA5 here, and GS here, in which the Court held that the FBAR civil nonwillful penalty is applied per account rather than per form. See Fifth Circuit Applies FBAR NonWillful Penalty Per Account and Not Per Form (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 11/30/21), here. That holding conflicted with a prior holding of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Boyd, 991 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2021), CA9 here and GS here. On February 28, Bittner filed a Supreme Court petition for writ of certiorari. The docket entries for documents related to that petition are here. On May 17, the Solicitor General filed the U.S. response, here, advising that the U.S. acquiesces in the petition (acquiesce was the term of art I recall from working at DOJ Tax Appellate in the 1970s) as follows (p. 12, bold supplied by JAT):

DISCUSSION

The court of appeals correctly determined that the Bank Secrecy Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 on a U.S. person for each foreign financial account that the person fails to report as required by the Act and its implementing regulations, because each failure to report a qualifying account is a separate “violation,” 31 U.S.C. 5321(a)(5)(A), for which the Secretary may impose a separate penalty. Yet, as petitioner explains (Pet. 13-25), the decision below conflicts with a recent decision by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Boyd, 991 F.3d 1077 (2021). The question presented is important and will often recur, and this case would be an appropriate vehicle in which to address it. Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Further, the Solicitor General said (pp. 18-19):

3. The division of authority between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits on the question presented is recent, and no other court of appeals has yet addressed whether the Secretary may assess a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each foreign account that  a U.S. person fails to report on a single FBAR. Nonetheless, the question presented is important and likely to recur, and the government agrees with petitioner that the issue—a fairly straightforward and discrete question of statutory construction—warrants this Court’s review at this time.

In early March, I discussed Bittner’s petition with a friend, offering the following on the possibility of the Court granting cert.

District Court Retains Jurisdiction While Arbitrary and Capricious FBAR Willful Penalty Amount is Remanded to IRS for Recalculation (5/18/22)

In United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. Case # 18-cv-81147-BLOOM/Reinhart Dkt #146 5/16/22), CL here, the Court granted the Government's motion to retain jurisdiction while the FBAR penalty is remanded to the IRS for recalculation. The pleadings on the motion and much other commotion at the district court level can be reviewed on the CourtListener docket entries site for the case here. I have previously covered the issues on retention of jurisdiction:  More Thrashing in Schwarzbaum on Effect of Eleventh Circuit's Remand to Remand to IRS on Statute of Limitations (4/1/22; 4/7/22), here; see also 11th Cir. Remands For IRS To Re-Determine FBAR Penalties After Affirming Original Calculation Was Arbitrary And Capricious (1/26/22), here.

The net effect of retaining jurisdiction is that the fight over the statute of limitations with respect to the recalculated FBAR penalty will be thrashed out later, probably on appeal after the district court enters judgment on the recalculated penalty amount. I am not an administrative law or Administrative Procedure Act (APA) expert, so I don't know and cannot credibly predict what the ultimate resolution of the issue will be. Can the IRS correct an "arbitrary and capricious" assessment outside the six-year limitations period? My best guess is that the law is not clear on the issue. I can say that correcting the assessment amount with the old timely assessment remaining in effect seems like the "right" answer. I just cannot speculate credibly on whether the law permits that right answer.

First Circuit Sustains Willful Penalty Where Willfulness Found as Discovery Sanction (5/2/22)

In United States v. Toth, 33 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 4/29./22), CA1 here and GS here, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment which had imposed a willful determination as a discovery sanction.   See 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; and District Court Grants Government Summary Judgment on FBAR Civil Willful Penalty (9/19/20), here.  The opinion, written by Judge Barron (Wikipedia here) is a bit of a slog (42 pages in pdf of Slip Op.), so I just focus on the parts of the opinion that I found interesting.

1. The opinion says (Slip Op. 3) that Toth had filed her first FBAR in 2010.  I infer that the Court means 2010 FBAR which would have been filed in 2011.  The Court then says (Slip Op. 3) “the IRS filed the delinquent FBAR forms on her behalf for the relevant period (2005-2009).”  I may have missed something over the years, but I don’t recall hearing that the IRS files delinquent FBARs for taxpayers.  (Compare by analogy, substitutes for returns filed under § 6020.)   I  am aware of no such authority for the IRS or FinCEN to file substitutes for FBARs. (But then I am often unaware.)

2. The Court has considerable discussion (Slip Op. 21-31) of the issue of whether the FBAR penalty was limited under the regulation originally promulgated in1987 under the statute then capping the FBAR penalty at $100,000 which was not changed after the 2004 amendment increasing the willful penalty to the greater $100,000 or 50% of the unreported accounts precluded.  The consensus in the Courts of Appeals is that the old regulation (now updated effective 12/23/21) did not apply to limit the maximum penalty under the 2004 revision.

Credit Suisse Taking Another Rap on the Knuckles (4/22/22)

David Cay Johnston. Wikipedia here, a prolific author of books and articles on the crimes of the rich, has this article on Credit Suisse, Repeat felon Swiss bank may finally lose privileged American status (RawStory 4/21/22), here.  The article reports that the Department of Labor is acting to take away a favored U.S. status, Qualified Professional Asset Manager, as a result of its numerous crimes.  Johnston reports Credit Suisse’s “rap sheet” as:

Rap Sheet

Credit Suisse has a long and thoroughly documented history of refusing to turn over money due to heirs of Holocaust victims, helping super-rich Americans cheat on their taxes and making loans using unusual terms that turned into disasters for the borrowers. One of its most recent felonies was punished with a $175.5 million fine. That’s chump change for a bank with assets of about $1.6 trillion. The fine was barely 1/10,000th of those assets.

TIGTA Report on IRS Effort to Enforce FATCA (4/12/22)

TIGTA issued this report: TIGTA, Additional Actions Are Needed to Address Non-Filing and Non-Reporting Compliance Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (Report # 2022-30-019 4/7/22), here.  I excerpt the highlights below, but for those practicing in this area, there is a lot of detail.  Good stuff in those details.

Why TIGTA Did This Audit

While taxpayers can hold offshore accounts for a number of legitimate reasons, some taxpayers have also used such accounts to hide income and evade taxes. The passage of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) sought to reduce tax evasion by creating greater transparency and accountability with respect to offshore accounts and other assets held by U.S. taxpayers.

This audit was initiated to evaluate the IRS’s efforts to use information collected under FATCA to improve taxpayer compliance.

Impact on Tax Administration

Individual taxpayers are required to file Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets, with their income tax returns if the aggregate value of the assets exceeds certain dollar thresholds. Foreign financial institutions (FFI) are required to File Form 8966, FATCA Report, to report information about financial accounts in which U.S. taxpayers hold certain “ownership interests.”

The IRS established Campaign  896 - Offshore Private Banking, to address tax noncompliance related to taxpayers’ failure to report income generated and information reporting associated with offshore banking accounts, and Campaign 975 - FATCA Filing Accuracy, which seeks to identify the FFIs that maintain specified foreign financial accounts for U.S. individuals but did not submit Form 8966.

What TIGTA Found

Due to resource limitations, the IRS has significantly departed from its original comprehensive FATCA Compliance Roadmap in favor of a more limited compliance effort. As part of its effort, the Large Business and  International (LB&I) Division established two campaigns to identify noncompliance with the individual and FFI provisions of FATCA. The chart below reflects nearly $574 million of FATCA-related implementation and maintenance costs compared against the LB&I Division’s campaign compliance results from the IRS’s systemic approach to address FATCA noncompliance, as well as FATCA-related assessments from field examinations.

District Court Concludes More Likely Than Not that President Trump and John Eastman Committed the Defraud Conspiracy (4/4/22)

 Readers of this blog will recall that I have written often about the defraud conspiracy and its interpretation in  Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924).  That interpretation, which I sometimes call the Hammerschmidt spin, provides a definition for defraud that expands beyond the definition of fraud in the criminal law and is thus a judicial expansion.  I and others have expressed concern about that expansion.  See e.g., my most recent offering which summarizes the concern. District Court Rejects Claim That Supreme Court Expansion of Defraud Conspiracy Is In Error (3/24/22; 3/27/22), here.   I usually address the concern in a tax setting where the Hammerschmidt spin is referred to as a Klein conspiracy.

Those who have been watching the news may have picked up that a federal district judge in California recently deployed the Hammerschmidt spin in determining whether certain communications by John Eastman, Trump’s putative attorney for attempting to prevent the certification of Biden as President, including the events surrounding the siege and breach of the Capitol  on January 6.  See Eastman v. Thompson  (C.D. Cal. Dkt # 8:22-cv-00099-DOC-DFM 3/8/22), CL here and GS here [to come].  In rejecting various claims of privilege or right to withhold  documents, the Court concluded inter alia (pp. 36-39) that Eastman and Trump likely committed the defraud conspiracy crime.   I thought readers interested in this issue may like the analysis which I copy and paste here (I leave the footnote numbers in the text but omit the footnotes except for the footnote citation to Hammerschmidt.):

ii. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

            The Select Committee also alleges that President Trump, Dr. Eastman, and others conspired to defraud the United States by disrupting the electoral count, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.242 That crime requires that (1) at least two people entered into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the government (2) by deceitful or dishonest means, and (3) that a [*37] member of the conspiracy engaged in at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement.243

            As the Court discussed at length above,244 the evidence demonstrates that President Trump likely attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. While the Court earlier analyzed those actions as attempts to obstruct an “official proceeding,” Congress convening to count electoral votes is also a “lawful function of government” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which Dr. Eastman does not dispute. An “agreement” between co-conspirators need not be express and can be inferred from the conspirators’ conduct.245 There is strong circumstantial evidence to show that there was likely an agreement between President Trump and Dr. Eastman to enact the plan articulated in Dr. Eastman’s memo. In the days leading up to January 6, Dr. Eastman and President Trump had two meetings with high-ranking officials to advance the plan. On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a meeting in the Oval Office to persuade Vice President Pence to carry out the plan. The next day, President Trump sent Dr. Eastman to continue discussions with the Vice President’s staff, in which Vice President Pence’s counsel perceived Dr. Eastman as the President’s representative.246 Leading small meetings in the heart of the White House implies an agreement between the President and Dr. Eastman and a shared goal of advancing the electoral count plan. The strength of this agreement was evident from President Trump’s praise for Dr. Eastman and his plan in his January 6 speech on the Ellipse: “John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.’”247 Based on these repeated meetings and statements, the evidence shows that an agreement to enact the electoral count plan likely existed between President Trump and Dr. Eastman.

            Deceitful or dishonest means Obstruction of a lawful government function violates § 371 when it is carried out “by [*38] deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.”248 While acting on a “good faith misunderstanding” of the law is not dishonest, “merely disagreeing with the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding . . . because all persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not they agree with it.”249
    n248 Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924).

More Thrashing in Schwarzbaum on Effect of Eleventh Circuit's Remand to Remand to IRS on Statute of Limitations (4/1/22; 4/7/22)

I have previously written on the case of United States v. Schwarzbaum (S.D. Fla. Dkt # 18-cv-81147-BLOOM/Reinhart CourtListener Dkt. Entries here).  All my posts can be seen with a blog search on Schwarzbaum here. Where the posts are presented first by relevance but a link at the top permits reshuffling.

A good place to start is 11th Cir. Remands For IRS To Re-Determine FBAR Penalties After Affirming Original Calculation Was Arbitrary And Capricious (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/26/22), here.  Applying oft used APA procedure the Court remanded to the District Court to then remand to the IRS for correction of the deficiencies.  As I note in that blog, there are statute of limitations issue on that type of remand, such as if a corrected assessment is required, is the corrected assessment a new assessment clearly outside the statute of limitations or is it just an adjustment of the earlier assessment for statute of limitations purposes?

On remand, the brouhaha continues.  The parties now dispute the issue of whether the District Court can retain jurisdiction while the case is remanded.  The Government has moved for the District Court to retain jurisdiction.  Schwarzbaum opposes the Government’s motion, urging that the remand to the District Court concludes the jurisdiction in the District Court, requiring that the IRS make the penalty determination afresh requiring a new FBAR assessment that would now be plainly untimely.

I won’t discuss the arguments but will just link to the pleadings:

• Government's Motion Dkt. 136, here;
• Schwarzbaum’s Opposition Dkt. 141, here; and
• Government's Reply Dkt. 144, here (added to blog 4/7/22).

Those wanting further developments can periodically check the CourtListener Docket Entries here.

Summary of Tax Crimes for Tax Procedure Class (3/31/22)

 This past Tuesday, I was a guest lecturer at Jim Malone’s UVA Law Class on Tax Procedure.  My subject was tax crimes.  I circulated in advance a pdf summary of the topic here (which I have changed slightly as indicated in red).  The summary is taken from the corresponding section of my Federal Tax Procedure Book Practitioner Edition but stripping out the footnotes and modifying the text as I thought appropriate).  Readers of this blog can download the summary here.  SSRN links to download either the Student or Practitioner Editions of the book are here. 

More District Court Thrashing Around on Arbitrary and Capricious Calculation of Willful FBAR Penalties (3/30/21)

I have written before on the saga of Timberly Hughes.  Court Sustains Willful FBAR Penalty for Two of Four Years (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 10/15/21), here.  Hughes is back in the news, so to speak.  In United States v. Hughes (N.D. Cal 18-cv-05931-JCS 3/29/22), here, Magistrate Judge Spero is trying to wrap up the case so that it goes to the District Judge and then, apparently, to the Ninth Circuit.  (The docket entries in CourtListener are here.)

 In high level summary:

1. The court confirms that for the two years it previously found nonwillful, that while losing on the willful penalty for the 2 years, there would be no nonwillful penalty for those years.  The court says (p. 3, n 4):

   n4 “The United States does not seek nonwillful penalties against Ms. Hughes for 2010 and 2011, though the United States reserves its right to appeal the Court’s  willfulness determination as to 2010 and 2011.” Pl.’s Reply (dkt. 168) at 2

I have never thought about whether nonwillful and willful penalties can be assessed and litigated in the alternative (something like a lesser included offense concept).  Since the IRS never assessed the nonwillful penalty, I suppose it is out of time to assert assess.  I don't know whether such alternative assessments and/or litigation could be made under the statutes or procedures.  For example, in the Hughes case, applying the nonwillful penalty to the years the court found were not willful.

2. The Court found that there were errors in the calculations and methodology in several respects and remanded to the IRS to reconsider the penalties.  There is no discussion of potential statute of limitations issues from a recalculation and reassessment.  The issue is whether a new assessment would be permitted or only an adjustment downward to the prior assessment.  I am not sure whether the normal APA remand to the agency holds or forces open the statute of limitations (sort of the way a petition to the Tax Court in a deficiency cases suspends the statute of limitations so that the correct number after litigation gets assessed).

3.  In paragraph 2 my prior blog here, I discussed a potential glitch where the IRS uses its methodology to quantify the willful penalty by spreading the amount quantified at 50% of the single high amount over the willful years.  The example I gave was a high amount of $2 million over four willful years and for simplicity assumed that high amount was static at all times during the year.  The maximum penalty authorized by the statute would be 50% per year, for an aggregate of $4 million.  Under the IRS policy to apply only a 50% to the high amount for all willful years (that's not each year), the willful penalty would be the same $1,000,000, but applied to each of the four years.  Now, with two years dropping out, does $500,000 allocated to the now nonwillful years drop off or can the IRS re-allocate the lost $500,000 to the years in which the willful penalty was sustained.  I don’t know.  And, if you vary the amounts so that only in one year the high amount was $2 million, you can get weird results to this type of issue.  And what if in that varying scenario, the high amount were in a year judicially determined to be nonwillful?

District Court Rejects Claim That Supreme Court Expansion of Defraud Conspiracy Is In Error (3/24/22; 3/27/22)

In United States v. Lucidonio,   (ED PA Criminal NO. 20-211 3/9/22), GS here and CL here and g, Lucidonio was charged with the Klein / defraud conspiracy (18 USC §371) counts of aiding and assisting (§ 7206(2)). The Court denied his motion to dismiss those counts. The denial addresses some major themes in tax crimes, and it is short. I recommend that tax crimes fans read the opinion. Perhaps read even more than once.

The opinion addresses two contexts tax crimes targets should consider the potential sweep of conduct subject to the crimes. First, there is the conspiracy charge in 18 USC 371. That statute includes two types of conspiracies:

(i)                The offense conspiracy to commit a specific statutory offense. The offense conspiracy requires the Government to prove that the object was to commit the conduct that meets each element of the offense. For example, for conspiracy to commit tax evasion, the Government must prove an intent to commit each element of the crime of tax evasion. The elements are of tax evasion are:  (i) substantial tax due and owing; (ii) an affirmative attempt to evade; and a willful attempt to evade.  Sometimes proving the elements of the conspiratorial object offense can be a burden, hence we turn to the other conspiracy in § 371.

(ii)              The defraud conspiracy (often called a Klein conspiracy in a tax setting). On the face of the statute, the object of the defraud conspiracy must be “to defraud the United States.”  Defraud normally in the criminal law means to take something of value from its rightful owner (or some variation). There is no reason to believe that, upon the original enactment of the predecessor of § 371 this crime in these words, Congress had any other definition of defraud for this element of the defraud conspiracy. Yet, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the defraud conspiracy certainly means to cheat or attempt to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct lawful governmental functions “by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest” even if no fraud is the object. Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924).  Through interpretation, Hammerschmidt effectively grafted into the defraud conspiracy criminalization of conduct beyond fraud onto the defraud conspiracy. For treatments showing Hammerschmidt’s embrace of a formulation of the crime beyond the normal meaning of defraud, see United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 66 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 819 (2013); John A. Townsend, Tax Obstruction Crimes: Is Making the IRS's Job Harder Enough, 9 Hous. Bus. & Tax. L.J. 255 (2009), here; see also United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 (9th Cir. 1993) (opening with the question: “We consider whether conspiring to make the government's job harder is, without more, a federal crime.”)  [Note: The defraud conspiracy as spun by Hammerschmidt may apply in other agency contexts, but its specific application in a tax context is usually referred to as a Klein conspiracy after the leading tax case apply the defraud conspiracy after Hammerschmidt.  See DOJ CTM 23.07[2][a] Generally.)] In short, the defraud conspiracy as currently interpreted, goes beyond the original meaning of the statutory text because the word defraud in the criminal statutes did not have that meaning until spun by the Supreme Court culminating in Hammerschmidt. 

In every practical sense, the Supreme Court added to the conduct that Congress required for the defraud conspiracy. Just stating that concept seems contrary to the oft-made statement that only Congress can create the elements of criminal statutes. Of course, it has always been the law that courts can spin the elements of criminal statutes, but just how much spinning is allowable. How far can courts wander from the statutory text?

That was the claim Lucidonio and others before him have unsuccessfully sought for the Hammerschmidt spin. The most prominent attack came in United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 819 (2013). The Second Circuit questioned the Hammerschmidt spin on the defraud conspiracy but felt obligated to apply because it was the higher court’s spin; the Supreme Court denied cert thus carrying forward the Hammerschmidt spin as law. Coplan, 703 F.3d at 62. Recognizing that reality, Lucidonio made the argument to preserve the possibility that either his case or some other case while his was still alive might get the Supreme Court to reverse the Hammerschmidt spin. (See Slip Op. p.  6 n. 2).

Lucidonio claimed that the Hammerschmidt spin was inconsistent with United States v. Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), SC here & GS here, and the concepts discussed and applied there. I urge readers considering this issue to review that case carefully because the conclusion of the Davis majority outside the context of tax crimes seems inconsistent with the Hammerschmidt spin on the defraud conspiracy.

For those interested in the issue of how far a court, even the Supreme Court can wander from the text of the criminal law elements, I recommend careful reading of Davis. This is a teaser from the introduction of the opinion (authored by Justice Gorsuch or his clerks (I have an anecdote on that at the end of this blog entry):

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.

Follow On Cases After Criminal Tax Convictions--Daugerdas and Larson (2/8/22)

Two recent cases have evoked memories of criminal prosecutions for promoters of abusive tax shelters:  United States v. Daugerdas, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 2776 (2d Cir. 1/31/22), Summary Order, CA2 here and G.S. here; and Larson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-3, G.S. here.

I have discussed Daugerdas’ criminal prosecution and conviction in many blog entries. See here. Daugerdas was a lawyer promoter of Son of Boss tax shelters. He made a lot of money in the fraudulent shelters and, as one consequence, brought down his law firm, Jenkens & Gilchrist. At his sentencing, the Court imposed a sentence of 180 month period of incarceration and major financial penalties in the form of forfeiture of $164,737,500 and restitution of $371,006,397. Daugerdas had previously exhausted his direct appeal and 18 U.S.C. § 2255 remedies. This time, while still incarcerated, he sought relief for the monetary penalties by a writ of audita querela, a writ in criminal cases used to cover matters that could not be addressed in the other remedies he pursued. The Court held that the writ querela was not available because “Daugerdas could have sought relief through other legal avenues.”  As to both of the other remedies—direct appeal and § 2255—even though it was not certain that he could obtain relief, he had the opportunity to pursue relief.

One interesting argument Daugerdas raised was the potential for relief under the holding of Honeycutt v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), G.S. here. Honeycutt held that, because of the language of the criminal forfeiture statute, a criminal defendant could not have forfeiture imposed for conduct for which the financial benefit went to other co-conspirators rather than Honeycutt. However, the principle of Honeycutt does not apply to restitution. (See 137 S.Ct. at 1634-1635.)  Co-conspirators can be held jointly and severally liable for restitution for losses within the reasonable scope of the conspiracy. See e.g., United States v. Veasey, (5th Cir. 1/28/21) Unpublished, CA5 here, and G.S. here (where the defendant raised the possibility for relief from restitution based on Honeycutt protectively in the event Honeycutt was applied to restitution during the appeal, see Slip Op. 27); and DOJ CTM, 44.03[2][b] Scheme, Conspiracy, or Pattern, here, pp. 14-16.

Second Circuit Affirms Tax Court that IRS Withdrawal of Certification of Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt to Secretary of State Makes § 7435 Proceeding Moot (2/1/22)

In Ruesch v. Commissioner, 25 F. 4th 67 (2d Cir. 1/27/22), GS here, the Court affirmed the Tax Court's holding that the § 7345 proceeding was moot where the IRS withdrew the "seriously delinquent tax debt" certification to the Secretary of State. The Tax Court opinion is Ruesch v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 289 (2020), TC here at Dkt #25 and GS here.

In addition to holding that the § 7345 proceeding was mooted by the withdrawal of the certification, the Tax Court also held (from the syllabus):

Held: We do not have jurisdiction, under IRC sec. 7345 or otherwise, to consider in this case petitioner's challenge to her underlying liability for the penalties.

 The Second Circuit addressed that issue as follows (emphasis supplied by JAT):

   Even if the Tax Court had jurisdiction to assess the validity of Ruesch's underlying debt, Ruesch had already received the only relief she could obtain under the statute, namely, reversal of her certification as an individual with "seriously delinquent tax debt." See 26 USC § 7345(e)(2). Since there was no further relief the Tax Court could have provided under the statute, and since the statute provided Ruesch's only claimed basis for relief, it should have determined that Ruesch's remaining claims were moot. n3
   n3 We note that Ruesch may yet have the chance to challenge her underlying liability in Court. That liability is currently the subject of an IRS appeals process that has still to run its course. See 26 USC § 6320. After receiving a final determination through that process, Ruesch will be able, if necessary, to "petition the Tax Court for review of such determination (and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect to such matter)." Id. § 6330(d)(1); see id. § 6320(c). If Ruesch continues to object to the IRS's position regarding her underlying liability, she will eventually have her day in Court. For now, however, there is nothing further for our Court or the Tax Court to do.

 Two points about this:

Court Rejects Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Based On Counsel's Delay In Preparation and Filing of Amended Returns (1/29/22)

In Evdokimow v. United States, No. 19-14130 (NLH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13110 (D.N.J. Jan. 25, 2022), CL here and GS here, the court rejected Evdokimow ‘s request for relief “to vacate, correct, or set aside his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”  Evdokimow raised several claims for relief, all related to ineffective assistance of counsel.  All of Evdokimow’s unsuccessful claims are interesting but I focus on the first one considered in the opinion, which the district court titles “Correction of Petitioner’s Returns” (Slip Op. 9-12.)

Evdokimow’s argument was that his lawyer, Kridel, after learning of the criminal investigation, failed to have Evdokimow’s amended returns filed promptly “had a crushing impact on Evdokimow’s defense at trial, as Evdokimow was, as set forth above, barred from introducing evidence that he had amended his returns based entirely upon the delay between the time Evdokimow learned of the government’s investigation and the time his amended returns were filed, which this Court held to be too long to be considered ‘prompt;’ the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction on that basis.”

There was a substantial delay in filing amended returns.  In the criminal trial, the defense wanted to submit proof of the filing of amended returns to permit the jury to infer his good faith and lack of criminal intent with respect to the original returns.  The Government opposed the proffer, and the court rejected the proffer on motion in limine and again at trial.  Evdokimow raised the issue on the appeal from the conviction, but the Court of Appeals rejected the argument.  United States v. Evdokimow, 726 Fed. Appx. 889, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6564 (3rd Cir. 2018) CA3 here & GS here, which I discuss in Court of Appeals Affirms Exclusion of Amended Returns and Payments after Start of Criminal Investigation (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 3/20/18), here.

In this § 2255 proceeding, the district court held that the argument did not meet did not meet the requirements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) that the petitioner show “(1) defense counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) the deficiency actually prejudiced the petitioner.”  The Court reiterated its holding from trial held that (i) proof of subsequent filing of the amended returns, even if filed more promptly, would have had “slight probative value” on the issue of his intent when filing the original returns forming the basis for the tax evasion charge and (ii) that slight probative value was “substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice and confusion to the jury.”

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Affirmative Act for Evasion of Assessment After Return Filed Can Restart Statute Of Limitations (1/27/22)

In United States v. Orrock , 23 F.4th 1203 (9th Cir. 1/26/22), CA9 here and GS here, the Court resolved potential confusion in the 9^th Circuit as to whether the evasion of assessment statute of limitations runs from (i) the first date that all elements of the crime existed (often in evasion of assessment cases when the taxpayer files the return) or (ii) a later date where the taxpayer committed an affirmative action of evasion (e.g., lie in an audit or, as in Orrock, file some false related return). The Court held that the latter date could, in effect, restart the statute of limitations. In other words, if the taxpayer had done no affirmative act after filing the return, the statute of limitations applies from the date of filing the return. If the taxpayer does an affirmative act after filing the return, the statute of limitations is in effect “refreshed.”

I am surprised that this could really be a continuing issue. I think that, in the 9^th Circuit cases that appeared to create uncertainty on the point, there was just confusion that has now been clarified.

I offer on this subject the following from Michael Saltzman and Leslie Book, IRS Practice and Procedure, ¶ 12.02[1][c][iv] Affirmative act of evasion (Thomsen Reuters 2015) (some footnotes omitted) (note: I am the principal author of Chapter 12,  titled Chapter 12: Criminal Penalties and the Investigation Function):

We discuss statutes of limitations below, but it is important to note here that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the last affirmative act of evasion. To illustrate, assume the taxpayer files a false return with intent to evade tax. That filing alone can be the affirmative act. If it is the only affirmative act, then the statute of limitations runs from the date of filing. There can be later affirmative acts with respect to a previously filed return. For example, if, incident to an audit of the return, a taxpayer makes a false statement to the agent in order to hide the original fraud on the return, then the statute of limitations on evasion will run from the date of the false statement.n104 Although the affirmative act element and the willfulness element of tax evasion are stated as separate elements, the elements are related in that the affirmative act element requires a willful intent to evade motivating the affirmative act. Stated otherwise, if the affirmative act element is satisfied, then wouldn't the willfulness element necessarily be satisfied? The cases discussing the issue are sparse, but the logic seems compelling.
   n104 United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 US 43 (1952) . The false statement is also a separate crime under 18 USC 1001. The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion many practitioners believe was wrongly decided, held that where the filing of a false return was an act of evasion of assessment, the crime was complete and started the statute of limitations, so that subsequent false statements in audit to avoid assessment were not separate acts of evasion starting a new statute of limitations. United States v. Galloway, 125 AFTR2d 2020-803 (9th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). The reasoning is not consistent with Beacon Brass where a taxpayer’s later false statements in the course of an audit effectively refreshed the statute of limitations.

 I will revise that footnote in the next cumulative supplement to the Saltzman treatise.