The IRS Serves Its 'Customers' by Terrifying Them
A $2.1 million penalty for failing to file a form on time reveals the agency’s true nature.

As tax season begins, the IRS is making a show of using its newly expanded budget to improve the agency's "customer service," mainly by trying to answer the questions of perplexed taxpayers more than 13 percent of the time. Its biggest challenge will be persuading Americans that they qualify as customers of the IRS in any meaningful sense.
The IRS, after all, does not provide goods or services that anyone would voluntarily choose to buy. Its main function is separating people from their money, and its chief tool is fear, as illustrated by the $2.1 million penalty it imposed on an 82-year-old grandmother for failing to file a form on time.
Monica Toth was born in Buenos Aires, where her Jewish father ended up after fleeing the Nazis in the mid-1930s. She immigrated to the United States in the early 1960s and eventually became a citizen.
Toth's father prospered as a businessman in Buenos Aires, and shortly before his death in 1999 he set aside several million dollars for her in a Swiss bank account. That made Toth subject to a requirement that Americans report foreign accounts containing more than $10,000 on a one-page form known as an FBAR.
Toth, who completed her tax returns by hand using forms she obtained at the local library, says she initially was not aware of that requirement. When she discovered her error in 2010, she tried to correct it by filing FBARs for prior years, but that paperwork somehow was routed to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services instead of the Treasury Department.
A 2011 IRS audit found that Toth had sometimes overpaid and sometimes underpaid her income taxes. On balance, she owed about $40,000 in taxes and penalties.
But that was not the end of it. Because the IRS concluded that Toth's FBAR failure was "willful," a label that courts have interpreted as encompassing reckless conduct as well as deliberate violations, she was subject to what the National Taxpayer Advocate describes as "draconian penalties" that are "among the harshest civil penalties the government may impose."
For "willful" FBAR violations, the penalty is either $100,000 or half the balance in the account, whichever is greater. Toth's penalty came to $2,173,703.
That jaw-dropping sum was completely unrelated to the gravity of Toth's offense or to any injury the government had suffered. She argued that it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive fines."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit disagreed. Contradicting Supreme Court precedents and decisions by other federal appeals courts, the 1st Circuit last year concluded that Toth's penalty did not qualify as a fine because its purpose was "remedial."
As the Institute for Justice noted in a Supreme Court petition it filed on Toth's behalf, that characterization was utterly implausible, since the government itself has described the aims of FBAR penalties as punishment and deterrence. Justice Neil Gorsuch highlighted that point when the Court declined to hear Toth's appeal this week.
"The notion of 'nonpunitive penalties' is 'a contradiction in terms,'" Gorsuch wrote in his dissent. "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."
Such deterrence is crucial for the IRS, which understands that people prefer to keep their hard-earned money and strives to counter that powerful instinct by making terrifying examples of taxpayers who break the rules, even when their violations are accidental, relatively inconsequential, or both. Given that policy, the fiction of taxpayers as customers is hard to maintain.
Toth surely does not see herself as a customer of the IRS, and neither does the average taxpayer, who every year confronts the frustration of complying with a byzantine tax code and the anxiety of triggering a grueling, life-disrupting audit. Against that reality, the agency's promises to answer the phone a little more often do not count for much.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
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
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
Google pay 200$ 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’ve made $19490 just within thirty days by simply working part-time on home computer. As I lost my last position, I was very upset but thankfully I have started this online assignment & in this way I am capable to get thousand USD easily from home. Each individual can certainly avail this easy work & may earn extra money on-line by
exploring this website..... http://Www.Salaryapp1.com
THEFT is what this Nazi-Governments business is today. It’s what every Socialist and Communist Nations government business is (there can’t be “theft” if no-one owns anything/property/themselves) because everything is managed through theft.
The ONLY reason for the EXCESS fine and all this drama is that the IRS found a Pot of Gold to STEAL.
Or in the mind of the criminal Leftard-Nazi…….
“She’s just being !!!—GREEDY—!!!; There’s no reason she can’t fund my *free* pony!”
What to do when Government starts working for criminals instead of to ensure Liberty and Justice for all.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
See my comment below. The fine is due to FinCEN, not the IRS. It is a small fraction of the maximum fine.
And both Sullum and you are missing the bigger point behind this story: it's not about excessive fines, it is about a global financial surveillance system.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
You have no idea what this story is actually about. Let me fill you in as someone who has dealt with FBAR for much of his adult life.
The FBAR form she failed to file goes to FinCEN, part of treasury; it is separate from taxes (you file a separate 8938 with the IRS for your foreign bank accounts). The IRS just happens to handle the enforcement side for Treasury. Those forms are filed to allow the federal government to detect money laundering and financial fraud. It's a small part of a massive, global financial surveillance system of Americans.
Toth's claims that she simply didn't know don't hold water: (1) The 1040 instructions are clear about the reporting requirements for both foreign interest and the FBAR form. (2) She concealed her foreign interest income from the IRS. (3) Her foreign bank informed her of the reporting requirement. (4) She tried to route financial transactions through a third country to conceal her assets.
She did this for about a dozen years, each constituting a willful and deliberate violation of the reporting requirement. The amount she was charged is probably about half her foreign assets, meaning it is a penalty of about 5% per willful violation.
The financial surveillance by FinCEN, CFPB, and other federal government institutions are an invasion of privacy and should be repealed; the question of whether a 5% penalty per violation is "excessively high" is a red herring, distracting from this more basic reality.
However, libertarians who don't even understand the difference between FinCEN and the IRS and don't understand the difference between one violation and a dozen violations can't make effective arguments against such a financial surveillance system.
Rather than informing people, Jacob, you are turning your readers into angry, ill-informed fools. Do your homework and do better.
Oh, and FinCEN and the IRS don't just do this stuff on their own. They're enforcing laws and statutes created by Congress, often with little oversight or consideration of unintended consequences (but that's Congress in a nutshell anyway).
I agree that's often the case. But this is not a case of regulatory overreach or unintended consequences: Congress intended stiff penalties for failure to report foreign assets to Treasury and the IRS implemented the law pretty much verbatim. Furthermore, the IRS has defined criteria for willfulness and requires detailed documentation and justification from the examiners for each violation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5321
Parent has a point that oversight was denied this case. See the order for sanctions in District Court against the defendant:
---
Defendant seeks to avoid sanctions on the ground that deeming her failure to file an FBAR in 2007 to be "willful" would be tantamount to entering a default judgment. [ECF No. 102 at 2]. The Court disagrees. The sanctions adopted herein are not the equivalent of a default judgment because they do not foreclose Defendant from arguing her affirmative defense that the fine imposed by the Government violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
---
Whatever the IRS's determination of "willfulness," a defendant should also have an opportunity to present evidence rebutting said accusation in court. She was denied that opportunity due to this sanctions ruling.
We can argue the details about why the sanctions were imposed -- reading the defendant's conduct in the case, I would tend to agree harsh sanctions were justified. But not to the level of entering a default judgment against her or taking away her ability to rebut the charge of "willfulness" in her defense.
The court, as quoted above, justifies this harsh sanction because apparently the defendant still had open the possibility of defense under 8th Amendment grounds. But that defense was also ultimately barred and then barred again in the First Circuit (which, notably, disagrees in its perspective on this issue about applicability of the 8th amendment to such "civil penalty" cases with several other circuits, another reason why SCOTUS should have looked into this).
So, even though the District Court claims it was not entering a summary judgment, it removed the woman's ability to defend against "willfulness" thereby removing her ability to defend against the $2.1 million penalty. And when she tried to argue the supposed other avenue under the 8th amendment, that defense too was disallowed. Effectively, as I've repeatedly said, she was denied due process in court.
Maybe her initial pro se defense was simply bumbling (she's old...), or maybe it was willful, or maybe it was partly willful but in a way that she also didn't understand the seriousness of what was happening to her until sanctions were imposed. If this were a criminal case (as it should be to charge huge sums of money for a criminal act!), the judge would have likely forced her to be supervised by a public defense attorney before it reached this level of sanctions.
But this was a CIVIL not criminal court, and therefore she was not entitled to public defense. Once she hired a competent lawyer, she should have been allowed to defend her actions in court and rebut the IRS's claims. She was disallowed from doing so due to the prior sanctions. Then barred from her one other means of defense (8th Amendment).
It's a messy case, but the parent comment is right that effectively here the IRS assessed this non-fine penalty "with little oversight," at least judicially.
You, on the other hand, accurately note that it was not a case of regulatory overreach, based at least on the statute as written. The issue, to me, isn't that the IRS exceeded its authority -- it's whether this authority and this magnitude of penalty makes any rational sense within a just system.
That is a nice hypothetical, but based on her own statements, there is no other possible conclusion than that her conduct was willful. She may not have known how serious the penalties were, but that's her problem.
Legal systems have deadlines and require following proper procedures. She squandered those opportunities.
The woman isn’t indigent, even after her penalty. She is not entitled to “public defense”.
And this right here is why you can’t trust anything in Reason. You always have to go to the comments to get the other side of the story. At least Reason still allows comments.
You can assume that the media sites that don't allow comments are misrepresenting their stories at least as much.
Unfortunately, don't believe a lot of what you read in comments, either. Mr. NOYB2 has some good points and arguments, but he doesn't give a crap about justice. He has some broader point to make about this system (which is fine, the points aren't invalid), but seems completely unperturbed by the idea that just because Congress authorizes a theoretical maximum penalty, it's fine for the IRS to take away 3/4 of someone's assets without due process, while the IRS gives another person a "slap on the wrist" and no significant penalty just because in their determination (not a judge's or jury's), they think it's a reasonable "penalty." (Keep in mind this is explicitly legally NOT PUNITIVE. The IRS can't take $2.1 million here to punish, only as a "penalty" not a fine.)
Mr. NOYB2 doesn't want you to know that in the Circuit Court's opinion, it comes out that the woman's "willful" disregard of filing this form was never found as a matter of law, because the District Court barred her from making that argument at trial, because of administrative sanctions imposed upon her. But whether her neglect was "willful" or not, the Circuit Court justified a 77500% penalty (no, that's not a typo) on top of ~$40,000 in owed back taxes on the basis of court precedent from 1938 that argued that a 50% administrative penalty was legally okay to recoup interest, cost of an investigation, etc. for the IRS. Somehow, we jump from 50% to 77500% legally, yet still pretend it's not a "punishment," and because it's technically not a "punishment,'" it's not subject to consideration as an excessive fine.
Mr. NOYB2 either doesn't know these facts or doesn't want anyone to consider them in thinking about whether the punishment in this case is just. When I brought them up on the last Reason article about this case, he told me to, I quote, "Go to hell."
So, maybe Mr. NOYB2 has some useful information to add here (I think he does, actually). But his "other side of the story" is also willfully blind, perhaps more than Mrs. Toth was "willful." Ah well, such are the shenanigans of the Reason comment section.
It can be true that Mrs. Toth was charged a completely unreasonable fine (while pretending it wasn't a fine), while also noting there are other serious problems with the system as Mr. NOYB2 notes. But Mr. NOYB2 instead is more interested in arguing and yelling at people than reasonable justice and the truth, it seems.
"...Mr. NOYB2 either doesn’t know these facts or doesn’t want anyone to consider them in thinking about whether the punishment in this case is just. When I brought them up on the last Reason article about this case, he told me to, I quote, “Go to hell.”..."
Having read what you have posted here in the past, it's quite possible you were told to go to hell for reasons which you are choosing to ignore.
Please be specific. What did I do to Mr. NOYB2 other than ask him to maybe be a little more polite, not to make (inaccurate) assumptions about me, and to consider my arguments rather than making ad hominem attacks against me (which he then refused to acknowledge)?
I’m polite to people who engage in rational arguments and debate honestly. You do none of those things.
Where have I been dishonest? Citations please.
I suppose you may not find my arguments “rational,” though I think that’s a matter of opinion. We seem to be after different things. You are, as I freely acknowledge a couple comments up, concerned (rightly!) about the overall financial surveillance in a system. (A point, I should note, you didn’t initially make clear in the other thread until after we had already exchanged a few comments. You were too busy trying to justify why this outcome in this case seemed perfectly okay. Rather than to focus on, as you did here in your first comment, your main points.)
I am concerned about your concerns too. You also seem very concerned about what will make a good “test case” to achieve your ends before SCOTUS. That’s great. Truly. I applaud your efforts to further this cause!
I, however, am also interested in justice for this individual woman in this case. Even granting her conduct was willful, is the outcome JUST. I have been forthright from the start that that is my goal.
You may have a different perspective on justice than I do. You may think it’s perfectly acceptable for Congress to write a law taking away huge sums of money for not filing a form. Or you may apparently think it’s unreasonable to require such reporting, but if it is supposed to be reported, it’s fine to take away huge sums of money on a whim without due process when it’s not reported.
I don’t know exactly where your threshold of fairness lies, but clearly it’s not the same as mine. That’s also fine. What’s not fine is confusing different standards of justice with “rationality” and then being impolite and demeaning to those you’re arguing with.
Cheers!
Here:
You misrepresent the court's findings and the history of this case, just like Stossel.
Nothing is going to change the outcome of this case because SCOTUS refused to review it. She has no more legal appeals. Her fines were in accordance to the law, both for the initial offense and for her conduct in court. If you want to help her, send her money.
And you can't be "interested in justice" if you misrepresent the case so fundamentally.
As I explained to you before, the $2.1 million penalty had nothing to do with her tax fraud. The penalty was for failure to report assets to FinCEN. Her penalty was actually 5% of assets per violation.
I'm interested in getting the facts on the table. You just keep misrepresenting the facts because you have an agenda and because you can't admit that you are ignorant and wrong.
You're welcome to try to argue that "5% of assets" is an excessive fine. Good luck.
"As I explained to you before, the $2.1 million penalty had nothing to do with her tax fraud. The penalty was for failure to report assets to FinCEN. Her penalty was actually 5% of assets per violation."
First, as I explained to you before, I don't care what the penalty is for. It's an unreasonable penalty, given the financial magnitude of the result of her actions (or inactions, in this case). I've repeatedly posed alternative scenarios to you where a 77500% charge/penalty (not punitive!) would at all be rational/reasonable/logical in any other real-world situation, and you've repeatedly avoided addressing that point.
The punishment should fit the crime. In this case, the crime was non-reporting apparently FOR THE PURPOSE OF committing tax fraud. (At least, if we assume her non-compliance was willful. Again, she was not allowed to defend herself against that "willful" characterization at trial, so evidence was never adjudicated for that properly as a matter of law. Another point you've ignored. But let's just set that aside for now and move forward with the assumption her conduct was willful.)
Second, your attempt to treat these things as two separate issues doesn't conform to the way the Circuit Court addressed precedent in its arguments. As I've repeatedly noted, to avoid ruling on whether this was an Eighth Amendment violation, they classified this as a "penalty" not a "punitive fine." Their justification for this was partly on the basis of a 1938 precedent addressing TAXES OWED, where a 50% penalty was assessed.
The courts can't play a game saying, "This has nothing to do with taxes but the IRS is going to punish her for something related to tax fraud, but it's NOT actually a punishment you see and therefore isn't subject to judicial review because look over here at this precedent on failure to pay taxes and tax penalties."
I mean, maybe in your legal world that's an okay justification. In mine, where I care about justice and whether punishments are appropriate in level to the crime committed, this is a serious issue.
"You’re welcome to try to argue that '5% of assets' is an excessive fine. Good luck."
First, I have no idea whether in the current judicial environment this would a reasonable thing to argue. But that's irrelevant to the question of what is a JUST outcome. There are all sorts of things in the current judicial environment (qualified immunity, civil forfeiture) that are insane and very unjust as they currently exist legally, and you'd have difficulty arguing against them in court. But they are still nevertheless fundamentally wrongheaded and produce results that are frequently insane-sounding to any normal person with a reasonable sense of "justice."
Second, yes, a "5% of assets fine" can definitely be unjust. Suppose Congress passes a law making it legal to confiscate 5% of your total assets for jaywalking. Is that reasonable? Seriously, is it? You've just told me that this woman's fine had nothing to do with tax fraud, so therefore apparently it has nothing to do with the government losing money. So, the government just decides that if you do some random thing wrong (jaywalk), they can take 5% of your assets? Okay with you?
Ah, but you say, at least those assets are in the account having to do with the regulation. Okay, let's modify it a bit. Pick some issue you don't like personally and think should be illegal. Let's call it "issue X." (People on the right wing might choice abortion, maybe people on the left choose hate speech... whatever.) The government says, "If you use monetary funds from your bank account to in any way support issue X, you must report that use in this form. If you don't we can confiscate 5% of your assets in that account. Doesn't matter whether the account has $50 or $5,000,000."
So, you post something on Facebook or Twitter or perhaps the Reason comments forum arguing that abortion/hate speech/whatever should be legal. The government says, "Oh, but you used your internet service to make that argument promoting activity X, and you didn't report that. You paid for that service from this bank account. Therefore, we're going to take $250,000 from your account. Have a nice day! Oh and this isn't a fine by the way. It's just an administrative civil penalty. So you can't challenge it in court. Cheers!"
Just because money is in a bank account with some random characteristic (e.g., "in a foreign bank," or "associated with supporting issue X") doesn't make it right that the federal government should be able to randomly confiscate 5% of it because you didn't file a form... willfully or not.
IF (as I've told you before) this were ACTUALLY a FINE, that is a PUNITIVE charge directed at this woman for willfully evading taxes, and she were allowed to defend herself under due process against such a criminal charge in a court of law, I might be able to see your point. But none of those things are true. This, legally, isn't a fine. It's not intended as punishment. As you say, apparently (legally, but not rationally) it has nothing to do with her tax evasion. She was not allowed due process to defend herself in court. And yet she somehow owed the government $3 million... effectively for not filing a form.
Go USA!
I don't care what you care about, at issue is first representing the facts accurately, and the facts are that the penalty she was assessed is not based on damages. Hence, it is wrong to present it as a percentage of damages.
Many countries, in fact, handle civil fines and criminal penalties as a percentage of income and/or wealth (structured fines), because that is the only way to achieve compliance from wealthy individuals. If you are a high income earner, a 15 mph-over-the-limit speeding ticket in Europe can cost you $100000.
Correct. It is intended as a financial incentive to comply with the reporting requirements. To act as an incentive to wealthy individuals targeted by FinCEN, it needs to be a structured fine.
There is nothing "random" about this characteristic: the US government wants complete financial surveillance of American citizens, and for foreign accounts, that requires self-reporting.
But instead of worrying about the existence of this surveillance apparatus, you fixate on the fact that a tiny little corner of this apparatus uses structured fines. Otherwise, it's out of sight out of mind for you and Stossel.
If we followed your and Stossel's reasoning about this case, we'd end up with a system in which wealthy people can just ignore financial regulations with impunity, while lower and middle class immigrants like are still caught up in a web of regulations and potential penalties that may not matter to Mary Toth but that hurt us badly. That's why I think "Libertarians" like you and Stossel are useful idiots to progressives and authoritarians.
"You just keep misrepresenting the facts because you have an agenda"
Just need to note -- of COURSE I have an agenda! My agenda is justice and fair outcomes, according to what a reasonable person might expect from their government. Specifically, in this case, even if this woman's conduct was willful, if you put her actions in front of a jury, they very likely wouldn't say she should be charged $3.1 million in administrative "penalties," amounting to roughly 3/4 of her account. (Keep in mind again that these are NOT punitive! This isn't what a jury mind find for a punitive award.)
You too have an agenda -- you've made it clear you dislike the parts of the system and stated your agenda clearly: "The financial surveillance by FinCEN, CFPB, and other federal government institutions are an invasion of privacy and should be repealed."
I agree with your agenda. Apparently you don't agree with mine. That's okay, but it doesn't mean I'm "misrepresenting the facts." It means that my facts are irrelevant for your cause. But that doesn't mean my facts aren't important in a broader assessment of the justice of the outcome in this case.
No, you are simply misrepresenting the facts, period. As is Stossel.
A jury would find her guilty of a dozen counts of violating FBAR reporting requirements and the judge would impose the penalty prescribed by the law she violated. Since she committed a dozen separate violations, she is penalized individually for each; there are no bulk discounts.
I think at this point, a more serious problem for her would be perjury, since she has obviously repeatedly lied to Treasury and courts.
I’m sure that’s what you believe. But in reality, you’re just a useful idiot for progressives, as is Stossel, by making a bunch of libertarian-sounding arguments with at best a superficial understanding of what actually happened.
Fuck off, slaver.
-jcr
How does explaining the legal situation make me a “slaver”?
I want to see FBAR and the entire financial surveillance system abolished. You can't do that if you don't understand even the basics of what is going on.
The LP doesn’t even talk about it.
As I was saying: But in reality, you’re just a useful idiot for progressives, as is Stossel, by making a bunch of libertarian-sounding arguments with at best a superficial understanding of what actually happened.
That was my analysis as well. >$4M in a Swiss bank account, and decades of not reporting it? Sounds very much like she was hiding money, and the IRS knows it.
It would be fine if Reason would include this information, and take a tough stance anyway. That I'd be ok with. However, the "half information" version, just like other media removes all credibility from the Reason author.
The US cannot have the curent woke socialist programs and crony capitalism without the KGB…I mean the IRS.
FBAR seems to be off by about one letter. I'm sure U can guess which one.
"A $2.1 million penalty for failing to file a form on time reveals the agency’s true nature."
This doesn't reveal the IRS' true nature. We already knew about what they are.
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by.
follow instructions on this website… http://Www.workstar24.com
The + IRS = theirs
She’s rich, she can afford it.
/ shitlunches
The IRS Serves Its 'Customers' by Terrifying Them
Jacob, the IRS' customers are the government, not the citizens, silly. They are serving their customers very well indeed.
Unfortunately.
If you want to raise my hackles, I suggest that you not pretend that this was just a missed submission. A multimillionaire dodging taxes on her investments for over a decade by not reporting her income or assets by funneling money through multiple foreign banks doesn't exactly inspire the anger that you are desiring.
Oh my god, that book they have "To serve customers", IT'S A COOKBOOK!
The Joy of Cooking Milhouse
The IRS has one customer: The US federal government.
I get paid over 190$ 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