As featured in The Wall Street Journal, Money Magazine, and more!

Search: settlement


The more money you have, the more likely you are to cheat on your taxes. The rich have more opportunities to try to hide assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service, particularly through offshore bank accounts. In the United States, banks are required to report income earned by their customers on savings and investments. Many taxpayers are familiar with the 1099-INT and 1099-DIV forms for interest earned and dividends respectively. The I.R.S. can somewhat easily match the 1099 forms provided by banks with the 1040 income tax return forms filed by taxpayers to find discrepancies.

Banks located outside the United States, depending on their local laws, may not be required to provide this information fully to the United States government. Thus, the I.R.S. might not know if a taxpayer is earning money in an offshore account, making it easy to “forget” to include that income when filing taxes. Of course, this is fraud, and a bad idea.

The government is getting better at convincing banks located in tax havens to comply with I.R.S. requests for information about customers who happen to be taxpaying citizens of the United States. UBS, the largest bank in Switzerland, has ended its offshore “secret” banking service in Switzerland as a result of a settlement of a federal investigation. And this year, the I.R.S. is requiring certain taxpayers to file a new tax form, Form 8938, disclosing offshore assets and income.

Here are the certain taxpayers who must file this form:

  • Unmarried taxpayers or married taxpayers filing separately living in the United States whose total offshore assets at the end of the year total at least $50,000 or whose offshore assets exceeded $75,000 any time during the year. Married taxpayers filing jointly living in the United States have thresholds that are double the amounts for unmarried taxpayers.
  • Taxpayers living abroad whose total offshore assets at the end of the year total at least $200,000 or whose offshore assets exceeded $300,000 any time during the year.

Taxpayers who are otherwise not required to file an income tax return are not required to complete this form, either. The guidelines for determining who must file Form 8938 and which assets to report can be a bit complicated, so it’s best to read the rules from the I.R.S. and speak to an accountant familiar with the new law for advice.

The penalties for incorrect information of Form 8938 are steep, and even small errors can result in significant fines. Failure to file the form when required to do so can result in a penalty of $10,000, and if you continue to ignore requests from the I.R.S. to file, the penalty can reach $50,000. Even if you live offshore and your country has a law preventing you from disclosing your financial information to the United States, you can’t avoid the reporting requirement and penalties. If you file the form but underpay your taxes even due to an error on Form 8938, you will be charged a penalty of 40 percent of your underpayment.

If the government can show you committed fraud in underpaying your tax, the penalty will increase from 40 percent to 75 percent of your underpayment. Those penalties are additional to paying what you do owe, according to the I.R.S., plus interest.

The I.R.S. is also threatening criminal penalties for taxpayers who fail to file Form 8938, fail to disclose all offshore assets, or underpay their taxes.

If you look at Form 8938, you will see that reporting requirements for offshore assets and income are different than requirements related domestic bank accounts and investments. In general, you only need to report income from domestic bank accounts and investments, but with offshore accounts, the I.R.S. wants to know the value of your assets, not just your income.

As David Jolly points out in The New York Times, the information you report to the I.R.S. on Form 8938 duplicates a separate reporting requirement. Taxpayers who have more than $10,000 in offshore bank accounts must already file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The FBAR is used by the United States Treasury to identify money laundering and terrorism funding, so the I.R.S. is already receiving some of the information it needs. Form 8938 ties this information to taxpayers’ income tax returns. If the government decides to use the information filed on the FBAR to cross-check the information included on Form 8938, it could potentially identify more income tax evaders.

New York Times

{ 7 comments }

As a Mets fan, though these days I try not admit being so, it’s bittersweet to see the organization settling its legal troubles relating to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. On the one hand, if the owners of the Mets were found guilty of ignoring the possibility of fraud, it could have spelled the end of the baseball team. The prosecution was looking for a restitution of $1 billion from the Mets’ owners in order to compensate other investors who were swindled by Madoff. The lawyers reached a settlement agreement, wherein the charges will be dropped with the owners of the Mets paying $162 million.

Compare this $162 million to a player’s contract; CC Sabathia’s contract with the New York Yankees is $161 million for seven years. The Mets owners will likely have the benefit of paying the settlement, if approved by the court, over a number of years, but for the same expense, the team could have added high-quality players or kept José Reyes from defecting to Miami. Reyes signed a six-year, $108 million contact with the Miami Marlins; had the Mets avoided investment trouble, the team might have been able to offer Reyes a competitive deal.

The good news for the Mets gets even better. Not only do they avoid paying $1 billion in restitution, the owners are eligible to receive restitution from the trustee. As those found guilty of fraud pay into the fund to help those who were defrauded recover their losses, the owners of the Mets will receive their portion from these proceeds. Any money recovered can be used to pay the settlement. The owners of the team could receive as much as $178 million, more than they need to pay through the settlement.

Is it possible the team owners could come out ahead as a result of their involvement with the Madoff scheme?

While this is good news for the team, the investors who were truly swindled by Madoff — if you believe anyone was truly swindled, as it’s the investor’s job to ask questions and understand their underlying investments — will not be able to recover their losses to the extent they would have hoped.

The $1 billion originally sought from the Mets’ owners would have been a great benefit to others who suffered losses, those who might have invested at a farther distance from Madoff’s team, with more layers of investment professional in between, obscuring the relationship between the end investor and the man behind the curtain.

Photo: The US Army
New York Times

{ 7 comments }

Many Consumerism Commentary readers have written in to let me know that they recently received a check for about $98 from Bank of America. This check is not a result of the Bank of America overdraft fee class action lawsuit, but it is the result of a similar lawsuit. First of all, the overdraft lawsuit has only recently entered an appeal process. It could be another year or more before customers see any benefits from this latest class action.

The check is the benefit that customers are receiving due to an earlier class action lawsuit, Closson v. Bank of America. Customers who are eligible had a Bank of America, Fleet Bank, LaSalle Bank or U.S. Trust Company debit card and paid an insufficient funds fee, overdraft fee or similar fee before December 31, 2007. In order to receive a benefit, customers would have needed to file a claim form before May 1, 2009. The deadline to receive any benefits has long since passed, so even if you fit this description, it is too late to become a member of this lawsuit.

This is one of many class action lawsuits against Bank of America, some of which pertain to companies that were purchased by the bank, like Countrywide Financial.

  • Ross, et al. v. Bank of America, et al. This lawsuit pertains to the bank’s forcing of customers into mandatory binding arbitration, much like Wells Fargo is doing today. This is a new class action lawsuit.
  • Closson v. Bank of America. This is the class action lawsuit I described above. Bank of America encouraged its customers to use debit cards that were designed to increase the number of fees. If you received a check in or around December 2011, and if the amount is $98, it is likely a result of this lawsuit.
  • Bank of America overdraft lawsuit. Over 1,000 Consumerism Commentary readers have offered their thoughts about Bank of America’s processing of customers’ debits in a certain order that ensured that they could maximize fee revenue from overdrafts. Read more here.
  • Homeowner lawsuits. Class action lawsuits in several states, including California and Washington, allege that Bank of America or its related companies withheld taxpayer money designed to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
  • Foreign currency conversions. Bank of America was one of many defendants (also including Visa, MasterCard, Chase, Citibank, and more) in a class action lawsuit regarding a conspiracy to set fees for foreign currency conversions, eliminating competition in this particular aspect of business.

Class action lawsuits are usually settled by the defendants, often without admitting any wrongdoing. As a result of settlement, affected customers often only receive a small award while the lawyers representing the class receive significant payments for their work and time. For example, in the overdraft fee settlement, lawyers will receive $123 million, or 30% of the settlement fund, unless the verdict is successfully appealed. At the same time, each affected customer will only receive a portion of the overdraft fees paid. That could be $35 or less per individual.

Are you included in a Bank of America class action lawsuit? Have you received a check in the mail from Bank of America without knowing why?

{ 32 comments }

Michael Bloomberg, the king-slash-mayor of New York City (will he increase term limits again to stay in his position?), has announced that Cornell University and Technion-Israel Institute of Technology will be transforming 11 acres on the southern tip of Roosevelt Island into a graduate school for technology. Classes will begin as early as next year and the first phase of construction on 300,000 square feet will be completed by 2017 and construction on 2 million square feet will be completed twenty years later.

Developing the land into a world-class graduate school will displace a hospital and some other facilities, but will generate $23 billion in economic activity and 20,000 construction, 8,000 continual operational jobs, and 30,000 jobs as a result of graduates’ activities according to Bloomberg.

A $150 million venture capital fund will provide resources to new start-ups affiliates with Cornell that promise to stay within New York City for at least three years.

With a world-class high-tech graduate program, New York City will become a tech start-up incubator, on par with Stanford University, who lost the bid for building a campus in New York City, and Silicon Valley.

Cornell’s bid for the land and the opportunity to transform New York City was assisted by a $350 million gift, anonymously given but later revealed to come from Charles F. “Chuck” Feeney. Feeney is a former Cornell student who co-founded Duty Free Shoppers Group and turned his wealth into a foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies. With the foundation incorporated in Bermuda, its activities are not generally public knowledge, but its grants are on par with the Ford Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Roosevelt IslandChuck Feeney has accumulated significant wealth over his lifetime, but you wouldn’t know it from watching him. When in New York, he walks and rides the subway, though he’s not the only New York billionaire to mingle with the people. He rents rather than owns a house, having parted with seven houses in a divorce settlement, but renting in New York is not necessarily an indicator of frugality by itself. He doesn’t own a car and flies coach. Feeney reportedly wears a $15 watch. Not wanting money to consumer his life, even his ownership in the business he founded was transferred to a charitable organization. Perhaps having given away most of his fortune away, Feeney has no choice but to be frugal, but his approach to money seems to be similar to Steve Jobs, the quiet billionaire next door.

Assisted by the gift from the Atlantic Philanthropies, a pledge from Bloomberg for $100 million in infrastructure improvements to the Roosevelt Island land on which the university will build the campus. Cornell will also partner with the State University of New York and the City University of New York in some capacity.

This could be an exciting time for New York City. Residents of Roosevelt Island won’t be displaced by the new construction, but patients and employees of the hospital that currently exists on the property will be. Having a University’s high-tech graduate program will change the character of the island, which was formerly known as “Welfare Island” and was a depository for prisoners.

Photo: shinya
New York Times, New York Times, Atlantic Philanthropies, Cornell University

{ 6 comments }

Judge Rejects Citigroup Lawsuit Settlement

by Flexo

The Securities and Exchange Commission, an organization designed to regulate and oversee the financial industry, is charged with acting in investors’ best interests. Most of the time, however, the SEC works on behalf of the large financial companies under its purview. As a result, when consumers demand that companies be held accountable for misleading investors ... Continue reading this article…

3 comments Read the full article →

Netflix Wal-Mart Class Action Lawsuit

by Flexo
Netflix

A few years ago, Netflix and Wal-Mart allegedly entered an agreement where Wal-Mart agreed to exist the DVD rental business and promote Netflix’s service and Netflix would not sell new DVDs to compete with Wal-Mart. A group of Netflix customers have banded together to enter a class action anti-trust lawsuit against the two companies for ... Continue reading this article…

11 comments Read the full article →

Citi Settles Lawsuit for $285 Million

by Flexo

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Citigroup has settled a major lawsuit. The Securities and Exchange Commission claimed that Citi misled investors, and to settle the claims, the financial behemoth was ordered to pay $285 million to customers. The issue focuses on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in 2007. The bank packaged subprime mortgages, loans with a good ... Continue reading this article…

2 comments Read the full article →

Bank of America Cutting More Jobs

by Flexo
Bank of America

After Bank of America investors have endured a year of suffering, Bank of America employees will start to feel the company’s troubles. Although the bank already announced significant layoffs this year, hot on the heels of a $5 billion boost from Warren Buffett, an overdraft fee lawsuit settlement, and a settlement for a lawsuit pertaining ... Continue reading this article…

13 comments Read the full article →
Page 1 of 41234