Supreme Court Declines Case Challenging Excessive IRS Penalties
Should an elderly grandmother be forced to hand over millions of dollars to the government for failing to file a particular form?

The Supreme Court today rejected to consider a case on whether some Internal Revenue Service (IRS) penalties are actually unconstitutionally excessive fines.
The case revolves around Monica Toth, an 82-year-old Boston-area woman who the IRS wants to seize more than $2 million from because she ran afoul of IRS documentation guidelines.
In the 1930s, Toth's family fled from Nazi Germany to Argentina, where she was born. Toth moved to America at age 22 and later became a U.S. citizen. Toth's father, a successful businessman, gifted Toth millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account before dying in 1999.
The federal Bank Secrecy Act establishes various record and reporting guidelines for citizens, including a mandatory annual form for any American citizen with more than $10,000 in a foreign bank—the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Toth was not filing this form with her taxes and claimed she wasn't aware of the requirement. Once she knew of the form's requirement, she contacted the IRS to attempt to come into compliance. The IRS audited her in 2011, finding she overpaid her taxes some years and underpaid others. She ended up paying $40,000 in penalties for her mistakes.
But that's not where the story ends. Under federal law, there's a penalty for failing to file an FBAR, and it's a doozy. The maximum penalty for failing to file the report is either $100,000 or half the value of the account's balance, whichever is greater. The IRS called her failure to file the right form "reckless" and has been attempting to levy a $2.1 million civil penalty, half the money in the account, along with an additional million dollars in late fees and interest.
Toth turned to the Institute for Justice (I.J.) for assistance. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the IRS, so I.J. requested that the Supreme Court intervene. The fight isn't over whether the IRS has the power to penalize people for failing to file proper forms. The fight is over whether the penalty in this case is excessive given the circumstances and, therefore, a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The United States has been trying to argue that a criminal "fine" for wrongdoing is different from a civil penalty and, therefore, not subject to the Eighth Amendment's restrictions of excessive punishment.
Today, the Supreme Court declined to hear Toth's case. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented from the rejection and wrote separately to explain that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the excessive fines clause in the Eighth Amendment can be applied in situations other than those that are most obviously rendered to those who are convicted of crimes. He concludes that clearly the massive penalty against Toth is intended to be a form of punishment meant to deter her and others from violating the law:
The government did not calculate Ms. Toth's penalty with reference to any losses or expenses it had incurred. The government imposed its penalty to punish her and, in that way, deter others. Even supposing, however, that Ms. Toth's penalty bore both punitive and compensatory purposes, it would still merit constitutional review. Under our cases a fine that serves even "in part to punish" is subject to analysis under the Excessive Fines Clause.
Gorsuch would have had the Court take up the case. But he appears to have been alone. No other justices signed onto his dissent.
"Monica's experience shows that civil penalties can have devastating consequences for real people," said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney for I.J., in a statement released after the justices declined to hear the case. "Naturally, we're disappointed that the Court declined to take up this case. The Excessive Fines Clause should serve as a key check on economic sanctions, and we hope the First Circuit will heed Justice Gorsuch's dissent and correct its misreading of the Excessive Fines Clause in future cases."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What happened to mens rea?
Volokh has some interesting comments on this. She apparently began as a pro se litigant, not very diligent, slow to respond to discovery and court orders, with the judge telling her several times to get a lawyer because she was in over her head. She only got a lawyer after losing, apparently. The commenter thinks she probably would have prevailed if she'd had a lawyer from the start.
Doesn't change the fact that taking 3/4 of her bank account is excessive.
And it's another shining example of how our laws are too complicated, that the only way to win is hire a lawyer.
Oh-oh! Better call Saul!
Better yet, get rid of the left so these things no longer happen.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,200 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
The left are cockroaches. They shun the light and hide in crevices. They are cannibals, as are leftists: always too happy to eat their own.
Unfortunately, also like cockroaches, they are tenacious beasts, and difficult to eradicate.
The right steals too. Don't believe for a minute "conservatives" won't take money from old ladies for their fantasies.
I for one am shocked, shocked! that a bunch of lawyers would draft and pass legislation that would require the common man to use their services.
That's a 7.5% penalty for each year she committed willful violations of FBAR. The law provides for up to 50% for each violation. Given how far below the maximum this was, this was a bad test case for "excessive civil fines".
She knew the law: she knew she had to report foreign interest and she knew she had to report foreign bank accounts. She knew that because her bank told her and because the tax forms say so. If she had a tax preparer, the tax preparer would have also told her. She deliberately chose not to report, for more than ten years in a row.
If her violation had been unintentional, her penalties would have been limited to a maximum of $10000.
This is the country that fucks you in the ass if you have money. It’s ridden with good ole boy clubs and if you forget to scratch one of their backs, the gov will come down on you. If you’re not assertive, they will take everything and try to go jail you because this is a police state. Best thing to do is get the fuck out and don’t come back.
"This is the country that fucks you in the ass if you have money."
That is inaccurate, this is a country that fucks you in the ass if you have a decent sized amount of money, but not a colossal amount of money. For those that do have colossal amounts of money, this country lets you fuck others in the ass. Examples include the covid shutdowns and anyone who flew to Epstein's island.
I am currently earning an additional $33,440 over the course of six months from home by utilizing incredibly honest and fluent online sports activities athletics. This domestic hobby provides the month. Given the stats system, I’m currently interacting fast on this hobby’s road and earning OPEN>>
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Mens rea is not required in civil actions.
However, in this case, it makes a difference.
The law provides for a maximum of $10000 per violation for unintentional violations, and a maximum of 50% of the account balance per violation for willful violations.
Don't ask me. All I hear both halves of The Kleptocracy talking about is boys' reas
Is that sarcasm?
A fine obviously does not require mens rea.
Just imagine if there were 9 Gorsuches on SCOTUS.
Hell, I'd settle for 5.
The Grabbers Of Pussy want nine Long Dong Silverbacks. National Socialist Conservatism has nothing to do with freedom or low taxes and never did.
My last month's online earning was $17930 just by doing an easy job obout 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job aEverybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website........
.
See this article for more information————————>>>OPEN>> GOOGLE WORK
This particular "elderly grandmother" took deliberate steps to hide financial assets from the IRS. That's what makes this a particularly bad test case. SCOTUS made the right choice in not taking up this case. There will be other, better cases to rule on.
"This particular “elderly grandmother” took deliberate steps to hide financial assets from the IRS."
Citation please! Or are you mind-reading?
Below is from the above article...
"Toth was not filing this form with her taxes and claimed she wasn't aware of the requirement. Once she knew of the form's requirement, she contacted the IRS to attempt to come into compliance."
We discussed this case at length here on Reason. If you paid more attention to what people said and less time spreading your Nazi propaganda, you would know about it.
Oh, OK, https://reason.com/2022/08/30/this-grandmother-didnt-submit-the-proper-banking-form-now-the-irs-wants-2-1-million-from-her/
From there...
"Once she knew of the requirement, she disclosed the existence of the account to the IRS and told them she hoped her filings would put her back into compliance with the law."
Noy-Boy-Soy-Toy-Boy, YOU are the fascist lusting after Government Almighty always taking MORE-MORE-MORE money from people for who-knows-what! Maybe for putting MORE innocent little children into wire cages, and losing track of their MomDad relationships, in order to satisfy YOUR "punishment boner" against the ILLEGAL SUB-HUMANS, perhaps? THAT is why greedy Government Almighty needs always MORE money, fascist?
Toth tried to conceal the existence of the account from the IRS.
https://www.courthousenews.com/irs-fine-for-secret-swiss-account-wont-go-to-high-court/
Furthermore, every US tax accountant will ask their clients whether they have foreign bank accounts and file an FBAR if they do.
On top of that, she needed to report the interest on the foreign savings as income, which also required her to disclose the existence of the foreign bank account.
The woman committed deliberate financial fraud over more than a decade, and that's why the argument that the fine was "excessive" is hard to make and this was a bad case for SCOTUS to take up.
"and that’s why the argument that the fine was 'excessive' is hard to make and this was a bad case for SCOTUS to take up."
Nope, sorry. The case that this particular fine is excessive is easy to make. The reason it was "hard" for the appeal to happen has to do with the absurd reasoning behind this. If you weren't so caught up with trying to debunk someone you're calling a "fascist" (which that person may or may not be, but I don't give a crap about ad hominem BS), and actually spent more time looking into the background of this case, you might see the serious libertarian issues to be concerned with here.
You see, if this woman was actually being PUNISHED for being a CRIMINAL through this fine, perhaps I could understand it as justification. That seems to be your implicit argument.
But that argument is false. This woman was denied her appeal and relief from this fine because the Eighth Amendment was ruled not to apply because this supposedly was NOT a criminal fine. And supposedly the Eighth Amendment only deals with criminal penalties (according to the First Circuit option, which is, frankly, BS, based on other court precedent, which Gorsuch rightly pointed out in his dissent).
But regardless, this woman wasn't charged this penalty for a criminal act. It was a CIVIL penalty. CRIMINAL fines for this type of tax evasion are capped by statute mostly at either $100,000 or at $250,000. Maybe you think those limits should be higher. I might even agree with you. What I absolutely do NOT agree with is the idea that a government agency like the IRS should have the power to confiscate money or property through a CIVIL action in excess of the amount authorized because they are trying to deter CRIMINAL activity. Why? Well, for one thing, it created the loophole in this case where the government said, "Oopsie! This isn't a criminal fine, so it's not subject to review under the Bill of Rights."
Let that sink in for a moment as you ponder your presence on a Liberarian website. You are arguing that the government gets to take money WITH NO OVERSIGHT because they are pretending this is NOT about criminal behavior, but rather a mere "civil penalty."
What is a civil penalty usually? Usually, these things are for the government to recover actual losses, along with extra penalty to cover necessary costs that were incurred by the government due to non-compliance. So, let's say you fail to pay $10,000 in taxes over 5 years. The government has the right through civil penalties not only to require you to pay that $10,000 it is owed, but also a penalty for interest, perhaps a penalty relating to a fee covering the cost of administering the late payment, the investigation that went into this, etc. So, you pay back the $10,000, and then maybe a few thousand dollar more in "penalties."
That's the normal use of a CIVIL penalty by the government.
What a civil penalty should NOT be is just a random made-up number that the government just reaches in and takes 3/4 of your bank account for no apparent reason. If it were about a CRIMINAL deterrent, then it should be authorized properly under a criminal statute, and it should also therefore be under review by the Excessive Fines Clause.
If this woman was indeed hiding this money, I completely agree with you that she should be penalized for criminal activity. But that's NOT what this case is about... at all.
It's about the government apparently recouping its actual reasonable civil penalties (as stated in the article, initially she paid $40,000 in penalties, presumably in addition to back taxes to "settle up" with the IRS for what hadn't been previously reported), but then deciding to reach back into her account and pull out millions of dollars more, well over 50 times the apparent amount (if the $40,000 is accurate) of the actual cost the government incurred by dealing with her initial non-compliance.
That's completely unreasonable and an insane level of government overreach. And the fact that the IRS is allowed to be insulated from the 8th Amendment by pleading that this isn't a "fine" but merely a civil penalty makes it 100 times worse, as it then makes the IRS's actions beyond reasonable judicial review.
Gorsuch, in his dissent, completely gets what's really going on here with the IRS's shell game. They're doing an end-run around a cap on a criminal statute fine to create a deterrent by setting this woman up as an example. But that's not how the law is supposed to work. Caps on fines in criminal statutes are generally put there for a reason, and they're subject to legislative review. Presumably the cap in the CIVIL penalty policy the IRS using here (up to half the account value) wasn't put there as a license to ratchet up penalties -- rather, it was likely put there to LIMIT the government from confiscating all of an account in penalties, even IF the government had cause to drain a lot of it to recoup actual losses in interest, fees, etc.
In this case, none of that logic applies. The IRS is just reappropriating a civil penalty to try to deter/punish criminal activity without any judicial or legislative oversight. The IRS is NOT a civil court. It shouldn't be engaging in assessing punitive civil fees without oversight. That's seriously concerning, and it's shocking to me that you're trying to bully people here into acting like this a non-issue.
And at a minimum, even if you think the level/amount of fine was appropriate in this case, you should be seriously concerned that apparently it's not subject to review at all by courts as a potentially "excessive" fine because of this way the IRS is framing it. There should be some connection between punishment level and crime, which is why criminal statutes often establish minimum/maximum penalties.
And by the way, you might find this paragraph from Gorsuch's dissent to be informative in summarizing a lot of the issues here. The IRS is arguing it's charging this woman $3.1 million in "remedial" fees. This is like your missing a few payments on your credit card that amounted to $200 and your bank emptying out the $15,000 in your savings account to cover "fees" because of your lateness.
Anyhow, here's Gorsuch:
---
But the First Circuit rejected this line of defense. It held that the Constitution’s protection against excessive fines did not apply to Ms. Toth’s case because the IRS’s assessment against her was “not tied to any criminal sanction” and served a “remedial” purpose. 33 F. 4th 1, 16, 17–19 (2022). [...]
This decision is difficult to reconcile with our precedents. [...] And all that would mean little if the government could evade constitutional scrutiny under the Clause’s terms by the simple expedient of fixing a “civil” label on the fines it imposes and declining to pursue any related “criminal” case. [...]
Nor is a statutory penalty beneath constitutional notice because it serves a “remedial” purpose. Really, the notion of “nonpunitive penalties” is “a contradiction in terms.” United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U. S. 321, 346 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting). Just take this case. The government did not calculate Ms. Toth’s penalty with reference to any losses or expenses it had incurred. The government imposed its penalty to punish her and, in that way, deter others. Even supposing, however, that Ms. Toth’s penalty bore both punitive and compensatory purposes, it would still merit constitutional review. Under our cases a fine that serves even “in part to punish” is subject to analysis under the Excessive Fines Clause. Austin, 509 U. S., at 610 (emphasis added).
No, it is not like that at all. She concealed the existence of millions of dollars in foreign assets for more than a decade in an attempt to evade US taxes on them. She was charged about half her foreign assets as a fine. Very painful, but not ruinous. That’s what makes it a borderline case for “excessive fines.” If the government had won this case at SCOTUS, it might effectively have green-lit fines of this magnitude.
In other cases, the US government completely ruins peoples livelihoods with excessive fines for unintentional conduct. SCOTUS needs to take up one of those cases to set the ground rules.
Oh, you are certainly typical of “Libertarians”: blind adherence to principle with no political strategy, nasty and hostile towards anybody who admonishes caution, and incapable of following any kind of complex argument. It is because of "Libertarians" like you that libertarianism is failing in the US.
Just to be clear again: I despise FBAR and the excessive fines agencies like the IRS can impose. They should be struck down. And that is why this needs a good test case.
Is that clear enough for you? Do you need it in BIG BOLD CAPS?
"Oh, you are certainly typical of 'Libertarians': blind adherence to principle with no political strategy, nasty and hostile towards anybody who admonishes caution"
Interesting that you seem to feel the need to resort to ad hominem, rather than actually addressing my (and Gorsuch's) primary argument. You are the one who in the message I initially replied to was calling other users "fascists," and now you feel the need to denigrate other people and your assessment of their intelligence, rather than engaging in rational argumentation.
I don't have time to explain this to you in-depth again. Try re-reading Gorsuch's dissent. The issue is a procedural one. Yes, Congress authorized this law (I never claimed the IRS was acting ILLEGALLY by fining this woman). However, the IRS is using it as a shield to choose their own amount of punitive fines without oversight. They could have charged her criminally, in which case the penalty would have likely been capped. They instead chose to assess a civil fine that was many times the capped penalty for criminal violations. By doing so, they deny the woman due process and an ability to defend herself in court or even to challenge the level of the fine and its appropriateness.
"Just to be clear again: I despise FBAR and the excessive fines agencies like the IRS can impose. They should be struck down. And that is why this needs a good test case."
I don't see how you've been clear about this statement at all previously, as it appears to contradict most of your arguments in this thread. You otherwise appear to be defending the IRS and its actions against this woman, just because she engaged in criminal conduct.
Just to be clear for me AGAIN: I don't have a problem with punishing someone for illegal conduct. I do have a problem when a government agency has the power to exact massive financial penalties without due process and no judicial oversight or right to appeal. That's a serious intrusive issue, and it's the problem behind both what happened in this case, as well as often in civil forfeiture cases, etc. Rather than charging a person (rightfully!) with criminal conduct and getting a judge to assess the appropriate level of punishment, the IRS gets to act like it's the Wild West and make up how much they want to take from your bank account, as long as it's not more than half... but we'll take more anyway in penalties.
I haven't even bothered to address the serious issues with how exactly the U.S. government should have oversight on money beyond its borders (short of its use in funding criminal acts within the U.S. or similar things), or whether taxes should be assessed on such assets.
But for you, she's a "criminal," so it doesn't seem to matter if the government randomly decides to take away 75% of her bank account without due process. That's poor logic. Even criminals deserve an opportunity to present evidence in their defense within due process. Even criminals deserve an opportunity to challenge the penalties assessed in courts. Even criminals deserve to have punishments that "fit the crime," or at least have some rational connection to the amount/level of crime committed.
You seem so intent on being defensive that you aren't willing to consider other perspectives. Instead, there's a need to bash them, to insult those who disagree with you. Chill, man. Take a moment and just listen, rationally, to the arguments I'm making, rather than what you think I represent or who you think I am (because I barely would consider myself a Libertarian, which is partly why I almost never participate in comments on this website -- you just like making assumptions apparently).
Stop attacking an individual and consider the arguments.
"No, it is not like that at all. She concealed the existence of millions of dollars in foreign assets for more than a decade in an attempt to evade US taxes on them. She was charged about half her foreign assets as a fine. Very painful, but not ruinous."
It's hilarious to hear of someone saying that a government agency assessing an individual a $3.1 million fine is magically "not ruinous." Do you know anything in detail about this woman's financial situation? How are you so certain that having millions of dollars disappear from her bank account won't be "ruinous" (either now or in the near future)? And even if it isn't "ruinous" for her, currently, are you willing to trust the IRS to just take this money from others for whom maybe losing millions of dollars might be more "ruinous"?
Here's a more direct analogy, taken down to a more everyday level of money for most people. You have a little side business where you make a few extra bucks. You ask a few of your clients to pay in cash to avoid taxes. Let's say you avoid $200 in taxes by doing this. Obviously, you're in the wrong here, and you and I would both agree that you should not only pay the back taxes but be assessed some penalties, maybe including punitive ones to discourage this sort of behavior.
The IRS finds out. Let's say there's a criminal statute that says you can be prosecuted for tax evasion because of this, but the fine for this sort of evasion would be capped at $1000.
The IRS doesn't like this. There's a separate law that allows them to take more money with a civil "remedial" penalty, and they charge you $15,000 because you failed to pay $200 in taxes. And if they had prosecuted you as a criminal in court, they could have at most charged you $1000. But you are barred from challenging the IRS because it claims the $15000 wasn't actually a "fine."
Does that sound fair at all to you? That's pretty much an equivalent scenario to what's happening here. The fine IS excessive, despite her potential willfulness and guilt. Failure to pay taxes, even deliberately, should not result in financial ruin, or significant forfeiture of assets. And if large penalties as deterrents should be assessed, they should be charged and adjudicated for the CRIMES they are related to, in criminal courts, with judges and juries and oversight, not dictated in their magnitude by the whims of some IRS bureaucrat who wants to make an "example" of this woman.
Congress authorized 50% civil penalties of the total unreported amount for each violation. The IRS charged about 5% for each violation (of which she had about a dozen), making the fine both modest in absolute terms and relative to what Congress actually authorized. That is what makes this a bad test case for “excessive fines”.
I don’t know what Gorsuch’s problem is, but obviously most of SCOTUS seems to agree with me that this was not a case worth taking up.
Why don’t you take your own effing advice? It’s not about this woman (contemptible as her behavior was), it’s about the fact that this case is a bad test case: if SCOTUS took it up, they would have to conclude that the fines were not excessive and it would, if anything, strengthen FBAR.
I called SQRLSY a "fascist" because that's what he calls everybody else, and because his libertarianism is rather authoritarian.
Observing that you are certainly typical of ‘Libertarians’: blind adherence to principle with no political strategy, nasty and hostile towards anybody who admonishes caution is not an insult, it's an observation. Even if it were an insult, an insult is not an "argumentum ad hominem".
Neither do I. Go to hell.
"Congress authorized 50% civil penalties of the total unreported amount for each violation. The IRS charged about 5% for each violation (of which she had about a dozen), making the fine both modest in absolute terms and relative to what Congress actually authorized. That is what makes this a bad test case for 'excessive fines.'"
First, you do realize that just because a law sets a maximum doesn't mean that the IRS generally charges it, right? The vast majority of the time they do not. Statutory maximums are usually there to cap judges and regulatory agencies from being too punitive, not as an encouragement to take as much as they possibly can.
And you keep citing this statutory authority like it makes any sense whatsoever. The problem is far deeper than you seem to be willing to dig.
And yet you still don't seem to acknowledge the scenario I proposed and whether it is fair or just. Did you even both to read the district and circuit court rulings in this case? I took a look at them, and some of the arguments there are quite crazy from a fairness perspective. At some point jurisprudence has become so far divorced from logic that you have to say, "Huh?"
For example (and I'm only going to explore one of at least a half-dozen of serious holes in the legal logic here), one of the primary precedents the circuit court used to uphold the ruling against this person was Helvering v. Mitchell (1938), where a penalty of 50% on top of owed taxes was ruled to be okay as a civil penalty, in order for the IRS assess interest, administrative fees, other fees needed in the process of collecting this money and running the case, etc.
50%.
50%.
Yep, 50%. If the woman in this case owed $40,000 (which appears to be roughly the amount), that would be an additional $20,000. That seems a reasonable "civil penalty" to me.
Remember that the circuit court here EXPLICITLY said that the $3.1 million was "not punitive," and they used this 1938 precedent of a 50% additional penalty to justify that concept.
What was the percentage extra here? Hmm... let's do the calculation: $3,100,000 / $40,000 = 77.5.
Thus, the IRS only charged this woman a 77500% civil penalty (not a fine! That would be punitive!) for failing to file forms.
And yet you're obsessed with whether this makes a "good test case." What about justice **in this case**? For this person? I guess you don't care.
I guess you don't care that her father hid this money from the Nazis to avoid Jewish confiscation laws. That's why it originally was hidden. And now, nearly a century later, the US government has finally accomplished what the Nazis couldn't -- they robbed this woman of her family's money. A proud day for the U.S.
Oh, you think I'm being hyperbolic? This isn't my comparison in this case. Head on over to the Volokh comment section on this SCOTUS cert denial, and you'll see a former tax agent made this comparison for how outlandish this action was against this woman. That's the opinion of someone who used to enforce these penalties.
Is a 77500% civil penalty REALLY not punitive?? Is there any reasonable universe where you can say that with a straight face, not just because of a court technicality based on an 85-year-old precedent of a 50% penalty?
The question isn't whether Congress authorized this theoretically. It's whether in this case the punishment is at all reasonable. Again, IF it were punitive, then MAYBE I could agree with you IF it had due process attached, she was charged in court, offered an opportunity to have appropriate defense, offered the opportunity for a jury trial, and then sentenced appropriately by a judge in light of all of the evidence. Most of that did not happen here, and she was not allowed to challenge most of it because of the LEGAL FICTION that this was "not punitive."
"I don’t know what Gorsuch’s problem is..."
Perhaps trying reading his dissent again. Maybe eventually you'll figure out his arguments. They're rather close to many of the ones I made here too. He's basically not willing to participate in the legal fiction game where we all pretend that the IRS can do end-runs around due process and take 75% of one person's account, charging 77500% penalties, while slapping the wrist of another, just based on bureaucratic whim.
"Neither do I. Go to hell."
Nice to see the level of civil discourse you espouse. Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother to participate very often in this comment section. I hope you have a nice day! Cheers!
You keep confusing tax penalties (IRS) and FBAR penalties (Treasury). Her actual FBAR penalties are about 5% of the foreign assets for each willful violation (each year she willfully failed to file).
Yes: because you don't know what you're talking about and ignore people when they correct you.
+1
No, I'm not arguing that at all. What I am explaining is that SCOTUS turned down this case likely because it was a bad test case.
I do think that SCOTUS should limit the ability of the IRS and other regulatory agencies to impose such fines. And they should pick a good test case to do so because the matter is so important.
The $40000 was likely for failure to pay taxes on her foreign interest.
Willful failure to report foreign assets under FBAR is a completely separate violation. It is punishable with civil penalties up to 50% of the assets per year, up to a maximum of 100%. This isn't something the IRS made up, this is the law as passed by Congress: 31 U.S. Code § 5321 - Civil penalties. The IRS acted in accordance to the law and in accordance to the intent of Congress when passing this law.
Maybe SCOTUS should strike down that law, but given that the penalty the IRS assessed amounted to maybe 5% per violation, they weren't even close to the maximum set by Congress, so it would have been a bad test case from that point of view as well.
This is all information that a journalist should have discussed in an article.
SQRLSY, fascists like you want the executive and judicial branch to carve out exceptions for people you like, even fraudsters, when it aligns with your political beliefs. It's because you hate the rule of law and think that "might makes right".
SCOTUS needs to look at the issue of excessive fines in a case where someone didn't try to commit fraud; and Congress needs to revisit financial reporting laws. That's the way things ought to work in a free country.
I checked this through Google Scholar and they said that the excessive fines clause didn’t apply.
The Supremes could simply say it *does* apply, then send the case back to the lower courts to decide it this particular fine was excessive. Maybe it isn’t, given all these aggravating circumstances.
A fine is a fine. At least if it’s imposed by a court you can invoke the 6th Amendment. But this is the Internal Revenue Service. They should be under the 8th Amendment, the taxpayer should be as protected as possible by the 8th’s plain terms.
That doesn’t mean this particular fine was excessive, just that the question has to be asked.
And there's no problem using an unsympathetic defendant to make the point. Indeed, I'm sure there are more sympathetic defendants, but why make them go all the way up to the Supreme Court when their rights can be settled in a case with an unsympathetic defendant.
Miranda was a rapist and kidnapper, his victim feared for her life. Not really sympathetic, no? But his case established rights for every suspect in custody.
A "penalty of 5% of the foreign assets for each year of deliberate tax fraud" doesn't sound so excessive, and that's how you can look at this case.
If SCOTUS took this case and decided the fines were not excessive, it would take many years before they looked at another case like this.
That's likely why SCOTUS didn't take this case. It has nothing to do with how (un)sympathetic the defendant may be; there are simply better test cases than this.
Income is taxed, not income. So why does the IRS even ask about assets?
With only $40,000 in penalties over 10 years, she wasn’t concealing much income for someone with $4 million in the bank.
Well, I simplified it in my remarks. You report your foreign interest to the IRS and you report your foreign accounts to FinCEN (part of treasury). That's why this woman was punished twice for each year she hid her assets: once for failure to report foreign income and once for failing to file an FBAR report to FinCEN.
It's part of a vast financial surveillance system by the US government under which domestic and foreign banks also have to report transactions to FinCEN and other US agencies.
Both the surveillance itself and the penalties are excessive and authoritarian. That's why we need good test cases to go up to SCOTUS and why Congress needs to look at this. This particular case just is not a good test case, which is likely why SCOTUS didn't take it up.
Swiss banks had near zero interest for much of the time, and Swiss banks have high fees on top of that, which she could probably deduct.
Again, though: the big penalty is not related to her tax fraud but to her willful failure to report foreign assets to Treasury.
She’s a rich bitch, she can afford it.
/shitlunches
She can rely on her old man's money, she can rely on her old man's money.
I remodeled $seven hundred in line with day the employment of my cell in component time. i latterly got my fifth payroll check of $19632 and every one i accustomed be doing is to duplicate and paste paintings online. this domestic paintings makes American state capable of generate further coins day by day competently simple to try and do paintings and standard earnings from this are simply superb. gd20 Here what i’m doing.
Just open the link————————————–>>OPEN>> https://dailyworls7.blogspot.com/
April 15 is the worst day of the year.
Oktober ist der wurst monat.
>>who the IRS wants to seize more than $2 million from
"from whom ..."? also I'd be with Gorsuch.
“To whom Brother! To whom!”
Just a reminder that the IRS did not make the tax rules, the Congress made the rules. The IRS are the administrators of the rules. If you don't like the rules go to the source.
How quaint and naive you are. Congress delegates vast swathes of rule-making ability to agencies.
Bingo!. Look at what the ATF is pulling with pistol braces.
Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act in 1970. That set forth the rules and requirement for Ms. Toth's accounts.
They do; it shouldn't be allowed. It's completely bonkers. The whole reason we have a Congress is so that legislators are answerable to their constituents. When they delegate their authority, they wash their hands of all responsibility. Not that it matters; the average voter is such a fucking moron it's not like they know anything when they step up to the ballot box anyway.
This country is irredeemably fucked, and I pray I'm dead before it implodes upon itself.
That's not the case here. The law specifies penalties up to 50% for each willful violation of FBAR reporting.
The discretion the agency exercised was not to charge her the full penalty, but rather reduce it to about 5% per violation (of which she had about a dozen).
Burn in hell, 8 of 9.
Does "fled Nazi Germany to live in Argentina" as relevant family history really make for a sympathetic defendant?
Might could be that challenging this nonsense would have a better chance with a different test case.
...ah, should have read the other article first. Oh well.
The dumb part was leaving pro-choice Argentina to come to National Socialist Amerika! Waitaminnit... somebody tell me she's not in Texas!
Tim: Please explain why you seem to think that fleeing Nazi Germany is worse than staying there?
In the 1930s, Toth's family fled from Nazi Germany to Argentina, where she was born. Toth moved to America at age 22 and later became a U.S. citizen. Toth's father, a successful businessman, gifted Toth millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account before dying in 1999.
Something something exhibit A on why income taxes are evil.
The FBAR penalties are FUBAR.
Making money online is more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I received $18376 last month. It's an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office jobs and even a little child can do this and earn money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page..... http://Www.workstar24.com
My takeaway from this is to never volunteer information to any government agency, ever. IRS would never have known about her Swiss account if she hadn't told them. Robbing her after she tried to make it right is an absolute dick move.
-jcr
There is nothing “voluntary” about it: reporting the existence of foreign bank accounts and foreign interest income is mandatory for Americans. Failing to do so is tax fraud. She knew that. This woman deliberately tried to evade both reporting the account and reporting the interest income. We’re talking tens of thousands of dollars per year in unreported interest income.
The reason she finally came forward is likely that European banks started reporting bank accounts held by US citizens to the US government around 2010; she just couldn’t get away with this anymore.
This was a bad case to argue “excessive fines” to SCOTUS. This wasn't a little old lady making an innocent mistake, it was a blatant and deliberate violation of US tax law involving millions of dollars and tens of thousands of dollars in taxes. That’s likely why SCOTUS is looking for a better test case.
Although this sounds like a criminal fine (requiring jury trial, etc, before being imposed), let’s just suppose it’s a civil or administrative fine.
OK, then, the 8th Amendment bans “excessive fines,” not excessive criminal fines. A fine is a fine, but this one isn't fine, if you see what I mean.
Look. I don't know why I keep reading this website. Perhaps it's because everything else is worse.
However, this article is grade-A nonsense and you know it. You deliberately omitted her money laundering, funneling the money through South America to avoid it being reported, and how she never reported any of the interest as income. NOYB detailed these in other posts.
This is a consistent problem on Reason. You put of an extremely one-sided case for what you believe is the right side, to the point of outright falsehood. It's even worse in death penalty cases, where your authors pass the point of falsehood and flat-out lie to try and make horrific killers look like little angels in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm gonna MISS this looter!
Note to foreign readers: "money laundering" is an American prohibitionist expression means hiding your lunch or dentist bill money in your socks in hopes that looters with guns or muggers with knives might overlook it. See https://libertrans.blogspot.com/
Try NARFE magazine, Mutha Jones, National Socialist Review... Jacobin?
It's a Shackford article. Lying and deception are expected.
Reason writers, like journalists in general, view themselves as propagandists these days: their objective is to manipulate people into taking particular political positions, no matter what. In the case of Reason, it's a simplistic "all government action is bad" viewpoint, no matter the context or circumstances.
What this article should have addressed is the question of why SCOTUS may have declined to take up this case, what the historical positions of different justices on this question might be, and whether there are other cases in the pipeline.
Ben: Do you have a link showing that "she never reported any of the interest as income"? It would be very odd if she had over $4 million in the bank for 10 years, but the whole penalty for the unreported interest was only $40,000 - 0.1% per year. Either she was reporting the interest (with a few minor errors here or in other parts of her returns), or she was so ignorant of financial affairs that she let $4 million sit and lose value to inflation every year for ten years.
Swiss private banks pay little interest and charge high fees; they are useful mainly for convenience and safety for the wealthy. Interest rates during the period were often 0% and the Swiss Franc was losing value.
But the high penalty wasn't for failing to report taxes, the high penalty was for failing to report foreign assets to Treasury, regardless of any income.
The woman clearly was a fool, financially and legally; you have to be a fool to willfully evade FBAR reporting: it costs nothing and the penalties are high.
Two-thirds of all Jews present among the Supremes when Christian National Socialism got Trump elected are now gone. So who here expects Pope Palito, Long Dong Silverback or Deutscher Madschen Bundona to have the slightest clue about excessive, cruel or unusual?
Well, I Guess white privilege don't always work for old racist white karens who cheat on the books, then want to cry foul cause a negro from the IRS didn't give their rich white ass a break or a he-Haw!
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.APPRICHS.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM