• FBARred in Toth v. United States

    From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jan 27 23:21:07 2023
    A taxpayer with more than $10,000 in a foreign bank is required to make disclosure under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Disclosure is made on a
    Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) on Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114.

    That would be at least $10,000 in aggregate on any given day, not even a calculation of the average daily balance throughout the year.

    These amounts have not been inflated since 1970. Curiously, we aren't
    talking about major money-laundering operations nor vast international
    criminal enterprises.

    But talk about presumption of guilt...

    Monica Toth was born in Argentina because her family had fled Germany to
    escape the Nazis. As an adult, she immigrated to America and became a
    citizen. Her father was successful in business and left her a
    substantial inheritance, but the monies were in a foreign bank. He died
    in 1999. She was not making the required financial disclosure for a
    number of years but when she learned later of her obligation, she filed
    years of back reports. This triggered an IRS audit in 2011, which found
    she'd underpaid taxes in some years and overpaid in other years. They
    still penalized her $40,000.

    IRS sought the maximum penalty for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy
    act, $2.1 million plus late fees and interest for another $1 million. The penalty is up to $100,000 or 1/2 of the monies in the accounts, whichever
    is greater.

    This isn't a criminal and it's perfectly clear where the monies came
    from in the first place.

    She sought relief under the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment,
    but hasn't gotten a federal court to agree with her. On the Supreme
    Court, only Gorsuch was willing to grant cert; no other justice would
    join him.

    https://amylhowe.com/2023/01/23/justices-request-federal-governments-views-on-texas-and-florida-social-media-laws/

    (search for Toth v. United States)

    https://reason.com/2023/01/23/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-excessive-irs-penalties/

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ira smilovitz@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Sat Jan 28 11:51:21 2023
    On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 11:24:47 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    A taxpayer with more than $10,000 in a foreign bank is required to make disclosure under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Disclosure is made on a
    Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) on Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114.

    That would be at least $10,000 in aggregate on any given day, not even a calculation of the average daily balance throughout the year.

    These amounts have not been inflated since 1970. Curiously, we aren't
    talking about major money-laundering operations nor vast international criminal enterprises.

    But talk about presumption of guilt...

    Monica Toth was born in Argentina because her family had fled Germany to escape the Nazis. As an adult, she immigrated to America and became a citizen. Her father was successful in business and left her a
    substantial inheritance, but the monies were in a foreign bank. He died
    in 1999. She was not making the required financial disclosure for a
    number of years but when she learned later of her obligation, she filed
    years of back reports. This triggered an IRS audit in 2011, which found
    she'd underpaid taxes in some years and overpaid in other years. They
    still penalized her $40,000.

    IRS sought the maximum penalty for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy act, $2.1 million plus late fees and interest for another $1 million. The penalty is up to $100,000 or 1/2 of the monies in the accounts, whichever
    is greater.

    This isn't a criminal and it's perfectly clear where the monies came
    from in the first place.

    She sought relief under the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment,
    but hasn't gotten a federal court to agree with her. On the Supreme
    Court, only Gorsuch was willing to grant cert; no other justice would
    join him.

    https://amylhowe.com/2023/01/23/justices-request-federal-governments-views-on-texas-and-florida-social-media-laws/

    (search for Toth v. United States)

    https://reason.com/2023/01/23/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-excessive-irs-penalties/

    --

    If you read the appellate court opinion (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-toth-9), the outcome isn't surprising. Toth, in the original trial, represented herself, and repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and directions of the court, including
    multiple suggestions that she hire counsel. IRS counsel was able to convince the court that her actions were stonewalling and met the requirements of willful failure to report the accounts. The finding of willful avoidance is one of the criteria
    necessary for imposition of the maximum penalty.

    If you ask me, anyone who is facing a multi-million dollar cause of action and doesn't spend a few thousand dollars to get competent advice, is looking for trouble. Toth found it. I can't say for certainty (no one can), but reading the opinion, I have to
    believe that with proper representation from the onset, the outcome would have been far more favorable to Toth.

    Ira Smilovitz, EA
    Leonia, NJ

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 28 14:28:34 2023
    IRS sought the maximum penalty for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy >> act, $2.1 million plus late fees and interest for another $1 million. The
    penalty is up to $100,000 or 1/2 of the monies in the accounts, whichever
    is greater. ...

    First circuit opinion here, mandatory reading for anyone interested in
    this bizarre case:

    http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/21-1009P-01A.pdf

    Rule #1 when you are in court is "don't make the judge angry at you",
    and wow, did Toth ever break that rule. She dodged process servers,
    didn't show up for conferences, didn't show up in court, didn't reply
    to discovery requests, didn't hire a lawyer when the court told her
    she needed one, and otherwise blew off the court until it was much,
    much too late.

    In the first hearing, the judge told her that she needed a lawyer,
    gave her a list of lawyers she could contact, and gave her a month to
    find a lawyer and come back. But she didn't. I agree that if she did,
    and she acted even a little bit contrite ("oops, dunno why I sent the
    FBAR to the wrong place, shouldn't have done that") she could have
    negotiated a much lower penalty.

    If the court found for Toth at this point it would be a signal to
    every tax cheat that if you stonewall long enough and get the anti-tax libertarians at Reason to blog about you, you'll win. That's not going
    to happen.

    This is a total cliche, but she's originally from Argentina and this is
    such a very Argentine approach to money and the law.
    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to ira smilovitz on Sat Jan 28 14:29:16 2023
    ira smilovitz <ira.smilovitz@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, January 27, 2023 at 11:24:47 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

    A taxpayer with more than $10,000 in a foreign bank is required to make >>disclosure under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Disclosure is made on a >>Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) on Financial Crimes >>Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Form 114.

    That would be at least $10,000 in aggregate on any given day, not even a >>calculation of the average daily balance throughout the year.

    These amounts have not been inflated since 1970. Curiously, we aren't >>talking about major money-laundering operations nor vast international >>criminal enterprises.

    But talk about presumption of guilt...

    Monica Toth was born in Argentina because her family had fled Germany to >>escape the Nazis. As an adult, she immigrated to America and became a >>citizen. Her father was successful in business and left her a
    substantial inheritance, but the monies were in a foreign bank. He died
    in 1999. She was not making the required financial disclosure for a
    number of years but when she learned later of her obligation, she filed >>years of back reports. This triggered an IRS audit in 2011, which found >>she'd underpaid taxes in some years and overpaid in other years. They
    still penalized her $40,000.

    IRS sought the maximum penalty for failure to comply with the Bank Secrecy >>act, $2.1 million plus late fees and interest for another $1 million. The >>penalty is up to $100,000 or 1/2 of the monies in the accounts, whichever >>is greater.

    This isn't a criminal and it's perfectly clear where the monies came
    from in the first place.

    She sought relief under the excessive fines clause of the 8th amendment, >>but hasn't gotten a federal court to agree with her. On the Supreme
    Court, only Gorsuch was willing to grant cert; no other justice would
    join him.

    https://amylhowe.com/2023/01/23/justices-request-federal-governments-views-on-texas-and-florida-social-media-laws/

    (search for Toth v. United States)

    https://reason.com/2023/01/23/supreme-court-declines-case-challenging-excessive-irs-penalties/

    If you read the appellate court opinion >(https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-toth-9), the outcome isn't >surprising.

    No, I didn't. I'll look. Thanks

    Toth, in the original trial, represented herself, and repeatedly failed to >meet deadlines and directions of the court, including multiple suggestions >that she hire counsel. IRS counsel was able to convince the court that
    her actions were stonewalling and met the requirements of willful failure
    to report the accounts. The finding of willful avoidance is one of the >criteria necessary for imposition of the maximum penalty.

    I'm a little confused. I thought she'd made disclosure for the missing
    years before the 2011 audit, and the penalty came much later.

    If you ask me, anyone who is facing a multi-million dollar cause of
    action and doesn't spend a few thousand dollars to get competent advice,
    is looking for trouble. Toth found it. I can't say for certainty (no one >can), but reading the opinion, I have to believe that with proper >representation from the onset, the outcome would have been far more
    favorable to Toth.

    Perhaps you're right. Given the severity of the penalty and the presumption
    of guilt in the Bank Secrecy Act, I'm wondering if someone with an
    obligation to disclose should hire a criminal attorney who specializes
    in this area of the law to file the disclosures on one's behalf.

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ira smilovitz@21:1/5 to Adam H. Kerman on Sat Jan 28 15:19:41 2023
    On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    ira smilovitz <ira.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
    If you read the appellate court opinion >(https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-toth-9), the outcome isn't >surprising.
    No, I didn't. I'll look. Thanks

    --

    Ah, the problems of the English language. "If you read" was meant to be "if one reads", not the implied criticism, "if you HAD read".

    ira Smilovitz, EA
    Leonia, NJ

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam H. Kerman@21:1/5 to ira smilovitz on Sat Jan 28 16:17:10 2023
    ira smilovitz <ira.smilovitz@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, January 28, 2023 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-5, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    ira smilovitz <ira.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you read the appellate court opinion >>>(https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-toth-9), the outcome isn't >>>surprising.

    No, I didn't. I'll look. Thanks

    Ah, the problems of the English language. "If you read" was meant to be
    "if one reads", not the implied criticism, "if you HAD read".

    I apologize for not having taken implied offense?

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stuart O. Bronstein@21:1/5 to ira smilovitz on Sat Jan 28 19:55:38 2023
    ira smilovitz <ira.smilovitz@gmail.com> wrote:
    Adam H. Kerman wrote:
    ira smilovitz <ira.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

    If you read the appellate court opinion
    (https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-toth-9), the outcome
    isn't surprising.
    No, I didn't. I'll look. Thanks

    Ah, the problems of the English language. "If you read" was meant
    to be "if one reads", not the implied criticism, "if you HAD
    read".

    I took it as "if you will read," which is entirely appropriate and not
    at all a criticism.

    --
    Stu
    http://DownToEarthLawyer.com


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com

    --
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
    << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
    << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
    << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
    << >>
    << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
    << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
    << are at www.asktax.org. >>
    << Copyright (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
    << ------------------------------------------------------- >>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)