Category: Ponzi Schemes

You’re a Victim of a Ponzi Scheme, But What About Your State Taxes?

IRS_Logo

You missed the warning signs and got suckered into a Ponzi scheme. The IRS offered some tax relief for long-term Ponzi scheme investors (like some of the Madoff victims) who have paid taxes on gains from the investment. The IRS clarified the federal tax law governing the treatment of losses in Ponzi schemes. They also set out a safe harbor method for computing and reporting the losses.

The revenue ruling (2009-9) addresses the difficulty in determining the amount and timing of losses from Ponzi schemes and the prospect of recovering the lost money. The revenue procedure (2009-20) simplifies compliance for taxpayers by providing a safe-harbor for determining the year in which the loss is deemed to occur and a simplified means of calculating the amount of the loss.

But what about state taxes?

California: On March 25, 2009, the California Franchise Tax Board announced that the federal guidance (Revenue Ruling 2009-9 and Revenue Procedure 2009-20) regarding the treatment of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses would be generally applicable for California purposes.

Connecticut: On April 9, 2009, the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services released Connecticut Announcement No. 2009(7), which describes the effect for Connecticut income tax purposes of the reporting of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses under the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor and under Revenue Ruling 2009-9. In general, Connecticut does not allow federal itemized deductions for Connecticut income tax purposes. Thus, any theft loss deduction claimed by a taxpayer under the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor will not affect a taxpayer’s 2008 Connecticut income tax liability. However, if the amount of a taxpayer’s theft loss deduction allowed under Revenue Ruling 2009-9 or Revenue Procedure 2009-20 creates an NOL, then the taxpayer must file amended Connecticut income tax return(s) for the year(s) to which such NOL may be carried back for federal income tax purposes.

Massachusetts: On March 20, 2009, Massachusetts issued: “Notice—Individual Investors; Investments in Criminally Fraudulent Ponzi-type Schemes and Reporting of Fictitious Investment Income.” Massachusetts did not adopt the Revenue Procedure 2009-20 safe harbor in the case of individual investors since Massachusetts tax law does not recognize the theft loss deduction provided under federal tax law.

New Jersey: On April 2, 2009, the New Jersey Division of Taxation had issued guidance on the treatment of Madoff-related
or other Ponzi scheme losses for New Jersey gross income tax purposes. Under this guidance, taxpayers are allowed a theft
loss deduction for New Jersey gross income tax purposes in an amount equal to the original investment plus the income
reported in prior years minus distributions received in prior years. New Jersey does not allow NOL carrybacks or carry
forwards.

New York: On May 29, 2009, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance issued guidance TSB-M-09(7)I (.pdf) on the
reporting of Madoff-related or other Ponzi scheme losses. In general, New York State will recognize the Revenue Procedure
2009-20 safe harbor.

For more information, Seyfarth Shaw put together some information: Some States Have “Weighed In” on Tax Treatment of Madoff-Related and Other Ponzi Scheme Losses (.pdf)

Ponzimonium, Ponzipalooza, Ponzimania

Charles Ponzi
Charles Ponzi

There is “rampant Ponzimonium.” Or is there a “virtual Ponzipalooza”?

Bart Chilton, a commissioner at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission coined these terms in his speech on March 20 before American Bar Association’s Committee on Derivatives and Futures Law Students.

Personally, I prefer Ponzimania.

The CFTC has filed charges against 15 alleged Ponzi schemes so far this year, compared with 13 during the whole of 2008. (If you do the math that would mean more than 60 cases for 2009, assuming the rate continues. )  In a search of the SEC litigation website I had 57 hits for Ponzi in 2009, compared to 92 for all of 2008.   (I admit that it is less scientific than the CFTC research.) Clearly there are more enforcement actions against Ponzi schemes. We are hearing more about Ponzi schemes in the news.

Is this increase because there are more Ponzi schemes out there?

Or are we just uncovering a greater percentage of Ponzi schemes?

I think the investment tide has gone out, uncovering more Ponzi schemes and fraud in the market. The newscycle has switched from celebrating big gains to wallowing in the muck from the financial implosion.

It is easier to run a fraud when values are increasing. Even a terrible investor can make some money when most of the possible investment choices are rising in value. Plummeting markets decrease the value of the poor investment choices and increase the amount of redemptions by the investors/victims. It was the redemption activity that finally did in Madoff. He could not raise new money fast enough to pay out the redemptions.

Jim Cramer has gone from being a rock star of the investing world to being the punching bag of Jon Stewart. The media is now turning on investment industry looking for targets to aim the public’s ire over the financial implosion. Fraudsters make good news and good targets.

I don’t think there are any more fraudulent schemes currently out there than average. The downturn in the markets is bringing fraud schemes crashing down. The media is feasting on carnage.

I expect that we will be experiencing Ponzimonium, Ponzipalooza, and Ponzimania for awhile.

See:

SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context

Charles Ponzi
Charles Ponzi

In the last six and half years the Securities and Exchange Commission has reached settlements with over 300 defendants in cases related to alleged Ponzi schemes. NERA Consulting has been tracking these SEC settlements since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in July 2002.

In that time frame there have been 12 Ponzi scheme settlements that involved alleged fraud in excess of $50 million. Jan Larsen and Paul Hinton of NERA Consulting put together an overview of those 12 cases and their SEC Settlements: SEC Settlements in Ponzi Scheme Cases: Putting Madoff and Stanford in Context (.pdf).

Based on the settlement amounts shown in this report, things don’t look good for the Madoff investors. The settlement amounts are small, averaging less than 10% of the fraud size. Most of the total settlement amount is tied to the Private Capital Management, Inc. case where $112 million of the $145 was recovered.

nera_table

Thanks to Bruce Carton of Securities Docket for pointing out this report (via Twitter).

More on Madoff’s Auditor

friehling

Yesterday, Madoff’s auditor was arrested for falsely stating that the firm had audited the financial statements. No surprise that such a small firm could be auditing a supposedly large investment company like Madoff Investments.

Just in time, the AICPA (that’s the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) has expelled Friehling from its membership following an ethics investigation.

“Although Mr. Friehling is not charged with knowledge of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, he is charged with deceiving investors by falsely certifying that he audited the financial statements of Mr. Madoff’s business,” said acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin.

Like his client, Mr. Madoff, Mr. Friehling was released on bail. He apparently post a $2.5 million bail bond and walked free, for now.

See:

Madoff’s Auditor Arrested

madoff

With Madoff in jail, it is time for the rest of his crew of fraudsters to join him.  Next up….

David G. Friehling, the sole practitioner at Friehling & Horowitz, CPAs, PC, has been charged with securities fraud, aiding and abetting investment adviser fraud and four counts of filing false audit reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that Friehling enabled Madoff’s Ponzi scheme by falsely stating that the firm had audited the financial statements. Friehling & Horowitz also made representations that Friehling reviewed internal controls, including controls over the custody of assets, and found no material inadequacies. The complaint alleges that all of these statements were materially false because Friehling did not perform a meaningful audit. The SEC alleges that (1) Friehling merely pretended to conduct minimal audit procedures to make it seem like he was conducting an audit, (2) he failed to document his findings and conclusions, and (3) if properly stated, those financial statements would have shown that Madoff owed tens of billions of dollars in additional liabilities to its customers.

“Although Mr. Friehling is not charged with knowledge of the Madoff Ponzi scheme, he is charged with deceiving investors by falsely certifying that he audited the financial statements of Mr. Madoff’s business,” said acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin.

If you are wondering about the Horowitz half of Friehling & Horowitz, he was apparently the Madoff auditor for many years before handing the account to his son David G. Friehling in the early 1990’s. If Madoff’s wrongdoing goes far enough back, Horowitz may need to worry about ending up in a prison cell next to his son-in-law. (UPDATE: Maybe not, since he passed away recently.)

See:

You’re a Victim of a Ponzi Scheme, But What About Your Taxes?

IRS_Logo

You missed the warning signs and got suckered into a Ponzi scheme. Can the IRS help by giving you some tax relief? This is a critical issue for long-term Ponzi scheme investors (like some of the Madoff victims) who have paid taxes on gains from the investment. After all, they have been paying real taxes on fictional gains.

The IRS has stepped up with guidance on what to do. They clarified the federal tax law governing the treatment of losses in Ponzi schemes. They also set out a safe harbor method for computing and reporting the losses.

The revenue ruling (2009-9) addresses the difficulty in determining the amount and timing of losses from Ponzi schemes and the prospect of recovering the lost money.  Some of the older guidance from the IRS on these losses is somewhat obsolete.

The revenue procedure (2009-20) simplifies compliance for taxpayers by providing a safe-harbor for determining the year in which the loss is deemed to occur and a simplified means of calculating the amount of the loss.

The first question is whether a loss from a Ponzi scheme is a “theft loss” or a “capital loss” under IRC §165? With the criminal intent of a Ponzi scheme, it is a theft loss. That also results in it being an itemized deduction that is not subject to the deduction limits in IRC §67 or IRC §68. You can read further in Revenue Ruling 2009-9 for more information.

Even with the clarification in the revenue ruling there many factual issues that have to be addressed to properly take the deduction. Given the ongoing investigations, it is hard to know the facts. So the safe-harbor in the revenue procedure draws some bright lines around what you need to take the deduction.

The first thing you need to determine is whether the Ponzi scheme was a theft. The revenue procedure provides that the IRS will deem the loss to be the result of theft if:

    • the promoter was charged under state or federal law with the commission of fraud, embezzlement or a similar crime that would meet the definition of theft; or
    • the promoter was the subject of a state or federal criminal complaint alleging the commission of such a crime, and
    • either there was some evidence of an admission of guilt by the promoter or a trustee was appointed to freeze the assets of the scheme.

      That seems to work very nicely with the facts for the Madoff scheme.

      Now that you can claim the theft loss, you need to calculate the amount of the loss. It may take years to find any assets and distribute them to the victims. Therefore, you have a problem figuring out the actual amount of the loss and the prospect of recovery. The revenue procedure generally permits taxpayers to take a deduction in the tax year they discover the loss and to deduct 95% of their net investment (less the amount of any actual recovery in the year of discovery and the amount of any recovery expected). If you are an investor suing persons other than the promoter (like the Madoff feeder funds), then your deduction is reduced by substituting “75%” for “95%”.

      This new guidance seems to address the phantom income concerns, but are predicated on the victims not filing amended returns for prior tax years. Are there other concerns that the IRS did not address?

      See:

      Can You Prevent Ponzi Schemes?

      Charles Ponzi
      Charles Ponzi

      With Madoff, Nadel and Stanford in the news, people are wondering why the government does not prevent Ponzi schemes. The government should protect us from these frauds.

      How can they?

      Ponzi scheme sponsors are thieves. Common criminals. They just wear suits instead of black masks.

      The government has not been able to prevent bank robberies, car-jackings or pick-pockets. (I lump Ponzi schemes in with these.) What government can do is deter and punish. An effective detection and prosecution program may deter some bad guys. If you feel certain you will get caught and punished then you are less likely to commit the bad act. On the other side, if you feel certain that you will not get caught or punished, then you are more likely to commit the bad act.

      The inspiration of this post is an article from Tresa Baldas summarizing some of the current steps being taken: Wave of anti-Ponzi laws coming — but will they work? The US Congress has already introduced two bills in the last few weeks trying to increase transparency and registration of private investment funds: The Hedge Fund Transparency Act and the Hedge Fund Adviser Registration Act of 2009.

      Don’t forget that Madoff and Stanford were both registered with the SEC and subject to some form of SEC oversight. Clearly registration and transparency were not effective at stopping them. They will increase the paperwork. They will make it harder for private investment funds to execute their business plans.

      I guess as a compliance professional more regulation would be good for me. More regulatory oversight means more work for compliance. But I would rather focus my efforts on helping my company execute its business plan and making sure that nobody is cutting any corners to achieve that execution.

      But with a new administration and issues in the financial marketplace, I expect to see some form of new regulatory requirements. Will they prevent Ponzi schemes? No, the government cannot prevent Ponzi schemes.

      Investors prevent Ponzi schemes. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. Guaranteed returns with no risk? It better be a bank with FDIC insurance (or the equivalent).

      Thanks to Bruce Carton of Securities Docket for pointing out the Baldas article in his post: Wave of “Anti-Ponzi” Legislation May be Coming.

      See :

      Madoff Goes From His Penthouse to the Big House

      madoff

      Bernie Madoff filed past a sea of reporters and camera flashes to enter his guilty plea in front of Judge Denny Chin. Several victims spoke, asking the judge to reject the plea and force a trial. They want grueling trial to make Madoff suffer and to bring more facts out to the public.

      Since he turned himself in to authorities back in December, Mr. Madoff has been living in his multi-million dollar penthouse. Back in December, the magistrate ruled that Mr. Madoff was not a flight risk and allowed him to stay confined in his palatial home.

      But now Mr. Madoff is guilty. Mr. Madoff’s attorney, Ira Sorkin, tried to argue for bail. But Judge Chin would have none of it. Judge Chin revoked Madoff’s bail, calling him a “flight risk” in light of the severity of the charges for which he just entered a guilty plea. He granted the government’s request for remand. The prosecution did not even have to rebut Mr. Sorkin’s argument for bail.

      According to the New York Law Journal’s Mark Hamblett, Mr. Madoff was taken out of court in handcuffs. I have not seen pictures of that yet, but I am sure there are many people looking to get a copy of that picture to frame. In handcuffs, he was delivered to Manhattan Correctional Center. (If you were thinking of sending some money to Bernie to help his cause, you should take a look at the Bureau of Prison’s Inmate Money Policy.”The deposit must be in the form of a money order.”)

      Fox Business takes us on a tour of his new home until his June 16 sentencing hearing:

      Presumably, Mr. Madoff’s lawyer will appeal the bail revocation. The chances of Mr. Madoff being released on bail are slim and none, and slim’s 401(k) has turned into a 201(k). After all, the appellate court gives lots of deference to the district court on bail decisions.

      The next question will be how much time will Mr. Madoff serve and where. Lets add up the charges:

      • Count 1: Securities fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison; fine of the greatest of $5 million or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense; restitution.
      • Count 2: Investment adviser fraud. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 3: Mail fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 4: Wire fraud. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 5: International money laundering, related to transfer of funds between New York-based brokerage operation and London trading desk. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 6: International money laundering. Maximum penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 7: Money laundering. Maximum penalty: 10 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 8: False statements. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 9: Perjury. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 10: Making a false filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Maximum Penalty: 20 years in prison, fine and restitution.
      • Count 11: Theft from an employee benefit plan, for failing to invest pension fund assets on behalf of about 35 labor union pension plans. Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, fine and restitution.

      That’s a maximum penalty of 150 years. Some of these may end up being concurrent sentences. But given that Mr. Madoff is 70, it would be a good guess that he will end up spending the rest of his life in prison.

      Where will he be spending that time? Jeff Chabrowe of the Blanch Law Firm told Esquire that he thinks it will be the Federal Correctional Institute in Otisville, New York because it is one of the few with a kosher kitchen. Sounds like a wild guess to me.

      It is good to see justice happening swiftly and effectively. After all the fear of prosecution is one of the better ways to stop Ponzi schemes. It seems like Mr. Madoff just wants this to end and accept his punishment.

      The compliance officer in me wants to hear more about the underlying facts of what made Madoff go bad. In his allocution Madoff states that:

      When I began the Ponzi scheme, I believed it would end shortly and I would be able to extricate myself and my clients from the scheme. However, this proved difficult, and ultimately impossible.

      What made him begin the scheme? What would have stopped him from starting the scheme? What lessons can learn from Mr. Madoff to deter the next Madoff from going to the dark side? How did he think he could extricate himself?

      See: