Court of Federal Claims Rejects Taxpayer Games in Partial Payment FBAR Civil Penalty Refund Suit (4/10/21)

In Mendu v. United States, 2021 U.S. Claims LEXIS 537 (4/7/21), Mendu filed a partial payment FBAR penalty refund suit for $1,000 and the Government counterclaimed for the unpaid balance on the FBAR assessment of about $752,000 (plus additions).  The Court made these key holdings:

https://www.taxnotes.com/research/federal/court-documents/court-opinions-and-orders/claims-court-holds-fbar-penalties-are-not-internal-revenue-taxes/4m251

• The Court has jurisdiction over a  partial payment FBAR penalty refund suit.  The Flora rule does not apply because the FBAR penalty is not a tax.
• The Court made that jurisdictional holding in rejecting Mendu’s own motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
• The Court rejected also Mendu’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the refund suit under Rule 41(a)(2) and transfer to the counterclaim to the district court for SD Cal..

So, the case will proceed on the refund claim and the counterclaim.

What was all the commotion about?  Basically, Mendu was pulling out the stops to avoid the counterclaim even at the cost of giving up his refund suit and, in any event to avoid adverse precedent in the CFC and Federal Circuit.  The reason:  the big dollars were in the counterclaim.

In the course of the commotion, the United States requested for a transfer of the counterclaim (effectively a collection suit) to the district court if the Court found it did not have jurisdiction of the refund suit under Flora.  The Government was apparently concerned that, if the Court dismissed the refund suit filed by plaintiff, the Court would have no jurisdiction over the collection suit filed by counterclaim and that would mean that a new collection suit filed in the district court might be outside the key 2-year statute of limitations for filing an FBAR collection suit.  The notion was that, if there is a transfer of the counterclaim to the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (permitting transfer “in the interests of justice”), the Government’s timely filing of the counterclaim will suffice for the statute of limitations on the resulting collection suit in the district court.

Mendu made an alternative motion to voluntarily dismiss if the Court found it had jurisdiction.  For purposes of that motion, apparently, Mendu joined in the Government’s request for transfer of the counterclaim to the district court.  As explained by the Court:

Plaintiff’s peculiar insistence to dismiss his own complaint appears to be for no reason other than to manufacture a "want of jurisdiction" in order to avoid the Federal Circuit’s binding precedent in Norman v. United States, 942 F.3d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2019). This Court will not permit such gamesmanship. Under Plaintiff’s suggestion, section 1631 could be used, not to cure a want of jurisdiction, but to create one that would undoubtedly be used to attempt to dismiss Defendant’s counterclaim. Indeed, if courts were to permit the type of transfer Plaintiff suggests, any plaintiff who becomes dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence could voluntarily dismiss his complaint notwithstanding a defendant’s counterclaim. Such a transfer is contrary to the text of the statute and is not "in the interest of justice."

Bottom-line, Mendu was playing cute with the Court which rejected the ploy.

Second Circuit Holds Onerous § 6707 Penalty -- $61 Million -- Based on BullShit Tax Shelter Subject to Flora Full Payment Rule (4/26/18; 5/8/18)

In Larson v. United States, ___ F.3d ___, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 10418 (2d Cir. 2018), here, the Second Circuit held that, in order to pursue the refund suit for the § 6707 penalty, Larson, a convicted tax shelter promoter, had to prepay the $67,661,349 penalty assessed.  Needless to say, the tax shelter was of the BullShit genre.  I had written on this litigation at the trial level.  SD NY District Court Rejects Partial Payment § 6707 Penalty Refund Suit (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 1/2/17; 1/9/17), here.

The Court of Appeals applied the Flora rule which generally requires full payment for refund suit. Flora v. United States (Flora I), 357 U.S. 63 (1958); and Flora v. United States (Flora II), 362 U.S. 145 (1960).  The opinion is straight-forward in stating the rule and rejecting Larson's claims under the Fifth Amendment, the APA and the Eighth Amendment.

The opinion does state, though, that something may be amiss quotation marks omitted):

We close with a final thought. The notion that a taxpayer can be assessed a penalty of $61 million or more without any judicial review unless he first pays the penalty in full seems troubling, particularly where, as Larson alleges here, the taxpayer is unable to do so. But, while the Flora rule may result in economic hardship in some cases, it is Congress' responsibility to amend the law. 

Larson and those similarly subject to this and other potentially onerous penalties may ultimately litigate in the following possible venues:

• In a collection suit brought by the Government to reduce the penalty to judgment, usually brought just short of the 10 year collection period. 
• A CDP proceeding, with Tax Court prepayment remedy, See IRM 8.22.8.10.5 (10-01-2012), IRC 6707 or 6707A Disclosure Penalties ("2. A taxpayer may dispute a IRC 6707 and IRC 6707A penalty in CDP if the taxpayer did not have a prior opportunity to do so")
• Perhaps in a bankruptcy proceeding, but I have not researched that issue. [See the Addendum immediately below which answers this question.]

ADDENDUM 5/8/18 4:10PM:

Court Denies Cross Motions for Summary Judgment on FBAR Willful Penalty (4/13/17)

In Bedrosian v. United States, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56535 (ED PA 2017), here, the Court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to an FBAR willful penalty assessed against Bedrosian.  The order is relatively short -- 9 pages.  I will just provide (i) the key documents; (ii) a timeline mostly from the Court's Memo (referred to as Court Memo) but with some from the parties' submissions; (iii) a discussion of the issues discussed and decided in the Court Memo; and (iv) some miscellaneous comments at the end.

KEY DOCUMENTS

• Bedrosian Complaint (Dkt 01), here.
• US Answer (Dkt 05), here.
• Bedrosian Reply (Dkt 07), here.
• US Motion for Summary Judgment - Memo (Dkt 22), here.
• US Motion for Summary Judgment - Statement of Facts (Dkt 22-3), here.
• Bedrosian Motion for Summary Judgment - Memo (Dkt 25), here
• Bedrosian Motion for Summary Judgment - Statement of Facts (Dkt 25-1), here.
• Bedrosian Response to US Motion (Dkt 26), here.
• Bedrosian Response to US Motion - Statement of Facts (Dkt 26-1), here.
• US Response to Bedrosian Motion (Dkt 27), here.
• US Reply to Bedrosian Answer to US Motion (Dkt 028), here.
• Court Memo Denying Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, here.
• Bedrosian Docket Entries (as of 4/14/17), here.

TIMELINE

1.  Bedrosian is sophisticated and successful corporate executive (CEO of generic medication manufacturer).  "In this role, Bedrosian supervises approximately 100 employees, signs contracts and financial statements on behalf of Lannett, researches FDA regulations, and decides company policy with respect to FDA filings."  (Court Memo p. 1.)

2.  Bedrosian has had at least one Swiss account -- with UBS (actually a predecessor that transitioned into UBS before the year at issue) -- since the 1970s.  At the time here relevant (as of 2005 and after), he had two UBS accounts.  "Bedrosian avers that he always considered them one account." (Court Memo p. 2.)  The description in the Government's statement of facts is as follows:  "Each account had subaccounts and contained different assets, but the client numbers for each main account ended in 6167 and 5316."  (US Stmt of Facts par. 15, p. 3.)

3.  "Bedrosian would meet with his UBS banker annually to review his accounts and how well the accounts had performed over the year."  (US Stmt of Facts par. 18, p. 3.)

4.  Bedrosian was advised by a prior accountant some years prior to 2007 that he should be reporting his income from the account(s) but, so Bedrosian alleges, that accountant advised him not to correct and the matter would be worked out upon his death when the "the assets in the Swiss accounts would be repatriated as part of Bedrosian's estate and taxes would be paid on them then."  (Court Memo 2-3.)  That accountant died sometime before Bedrosian assigned the tax return work to a new preparer for the 2007 year.

SD NY District Court Rejects Partial Payment § 6707 Penalty Refund Suit (1/2/17; 1/9/17)

In Larson v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179314 (SD NY 2016), here, the Court rejected an attempt by a promoter assessed a very, very large § 6707 penalty to avoid the Flora full payment rule for refund litigation.  The principal holding is that the § 6707 penalty is not a divisible penalty that could benefit under divisible tax exception to Flora's full payment rule.  This aspect of the case is consistent with prior holdings such as Diversified Group Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 975, 981 (Fed. Cir. 2016), here.

The full bore application of the Flora full payment exception is troubling on these facts with very, very large § 6707 penalties.  The IRS assessed a $24,745,026 penalty for the FLIP/OPIS shelter and a $135,487,056 penalty for the BLIPS shelter.  The total was thus $160,232,026.  The IRS did reduce the penalty by amounts paid by other co-promoters.  The aggregate amount of that reduction was $96,820,667, leaving Larson liable for $63,411,359.  (Co-promoters also might be liable for the unpaid balance.)

Larson made a partial payment of $1,432,735, hence his refund suit alleging a divisible tax as a basis for not paying all.  The Court's basic analysis as to why the § 6707 penalty is not divisible is fairly straight-forward.  I think the following discussion relating to the claims of hardship because of the amount of the penalty is interesting.

Indeed, at oral argument, Larson did not dispute that the failure to register a tax shelter was "only one act," or "one act per shelter," Tr. at 17:22-23; rather, Larson seeks to limit the applicability of the full-payment rule to his particular circumstances. In a due process challenge to the application of the full-payment rule, Larson argues that the full-payment rule violates "the Fifth Amendment where there is no alternative forum having jurisdiction over pre-payment challenges to such penalties and where an individual does not have the financial means to pay the penalties in full." Opp. Br. at 7. Foreclosed from review in Tax Court, Larson argues that because he cannot pay the penalty, and he cannot seek review for his claim without paying the penalty, the imposition of the full-payment rule violates his Fifth Amendment right to due process. n9
   n9 Larson did not assert a Due Process claim in his Complaint, but he makes arguments based on the Due Process Clause in opposing the Government's motion to dismiss. 

Larson argues that the Supreme Court in Flora I and Flora II never intended for the full-payment rule to apply in circumstances in which Tax Court review is unavailable and the challenged penalty amount is unaffordable to the taxpayer. Larson's reading of Flora I and Flora II strains to find due process arguments where none exists. In reviewing the legislative history of 26 U.S. § 1346(a)(1) and the legislative history that led to the creation of Tax Court, the Supreme Court noted that Congress created the Tax Court as a prepayment forum to ameliorate "the hardship of prelitigation payment." Flora I, 357 U.S. at 74, 75; Flora II, 362 U.S. at 158. But it is clear that Congress created the Tax Court out of legislative grace, not because it was a constitutionally-required response to the full payment rule. See Flora I, 357 U.S. at 75; Flora II, 362 U.S. at 158. Flora I and Flora II held that, in district court, a taxpayer must "pay first and litigate later," and Larson points to no authority that supports his argument that the unavailability of the Tax Court vitiates the full-payment rule in district court. Carving a "when Tax Court is unavailable" exception into the full-payment rule would subvert the full-payment rule's purpose in "promot[ing] the smooth functioning of [the tax litigation] system." See Flora II, 362 U.S. at 647. Although this Court is sympathetic to Larson's circumstances, this Court declines to recognize such an exception to well-settled jurisdictional limits.