Perhaps the singularly largest beneficiary as a recipient of fraudulently conveyed funds was the United States Government since many of the redeemers will have paid capital gains taxes upon the BLM redemptions with fraudulently conveyed funds. As a result, it will be incumbent upon them to disgorge said tax receipts back to the administrator for ultimate redistribution. Given the length of time many investors were "in", the capital gains, and thus the taxes thereupon would, one might assume, be very large.
Nothing like kicking someone when they are down! And it gets worse for Uncle Sam since (as has been widely pointed-out) the investment losses will offset investment gains for many taxpayers (only of course if ever again investment gains outside the US Govt Bond market resurface again within the statute of limitations for their carry-forward) for years to come.
Posts
14 comments:
I am wondering, in the spirit of the Wells Fargo ruling
by treasury re Wachovia losses, whether a marriage to
a B.M. victim would allow the marrior to offset his/her
capital gains against the losses of the marryee. Not that there's anything WRONG with that.
Its easy enough to amend past tax returns.
In cases of fraud such as this, there may be a proactive approach taken by the IRS in terms of issuing guidelines . . .
C,
Not sure investors need to worry about carrying forward losses. Arguably, the losses are due to "theft", and "theft" losses can potentially offset ordinary income. If an investor owns a substantial business through an entity that is transparent for tax purposes, or an investor rotates most of their portfolio into debt producing interest income, they may well be able to soak up "theft" losses. This might even be an opportunity to invest in something ordinarily toxic, like zero coupon bonds.
C,
One other point, assuming investors can rapidly utilize "theft" losses to Madoff by deducting them against ordinary income, the tax receipts to the US fisc are merely an interest free loan to the government. Not a permanent gift to Uncle Sam.
Happy New year Cassandra. This is my favourite must read blog.
For some reason couldn't post a comment for the last week or so of 2008.
Whether those who get out early in a Ponzi scheme are obligated to cough up their money is an interesting and still unresolved legal question. In principle it seems to me that the "winners" and losers should be made as whole as possible. It would be outrageous
if the Feds made off with taxes paid on gains by the "winners". See the attached link re fraudulent conveyance liability of "winners" in Ponzi schemes.
http://www.dechert.com/library/White%20Collar_03-07.pdf
"Whether those who get out early in a Ponzi scheme are obligated to cough up their money is an interesting and still unresolved legal question."
Given the various badges of fraud, and popular press skeptical of Madoff like the 2001 article on madoff, why wouldn't the statute of limitations kill claims against investors who pulled money more than 4 years ago (or after whatever number of years the statute period is)?
Re statute of limitations, the clock usually doesn't begin ticking until the potential plaintiff knows (or should have known) he has a claim. As a practical matter, if the Madoff scheme has been slowly building over 15 years, clearly it is going to be nearly impossible to unscramble the whole thing now.
"Re statute of limitations, the clock usually doesn't begin ticking until the potential plaintiff knows (or should have known) he has a claim."
Like I said before, after the 2001 Barrons article criticizing Madoff, why wouldn't a reasonable person have been put on notice that Madoff was likely making money by fraud, either fraud against his investors or fraud against his brokerage clients? And if so, why wouldn't that have started the statute of limitations?
But hey, maybe you can find some hungry plaintiff attorney willing to take the case on contingency... That's the american way.
If it was so obvious how come smart (or at least rich) people continued to put lots of real money at risk with Madoff until the very end?
"If it was so obvious how come smart (or at least rich) people continued to put lots of real money at risk with Madoff until the very end?"
The question is not whether it was obvious to a random man on the street whether Madoff was defrauding investors or brokerage clients. Or whether a lazy investor who performs zero diligence -- other than confirming Madoff had an open face and nice manners -- should have known. The question is whether an investor would have been put on notice after the 2001 Barrons article if they acted as a woman of prudence, discretion and intelligence does in managing her own investments. And after the Barrons article and other questions raised publicly, she likely would have thought Madoff was shady 'sumbitch.
But hey, there are probably hungry plaintiff lawyers who'd love a shot to prove she wouldn't have suspected any fraud. Go talk to them; that's the american way.
http://nakedshorts.typepad.com/files/madoff.pdf
"If it was so obvious how come smart (or at least rich) people continued to put lots of real money at risk with Madoff until the very end?"
Have any of you ever followed the OTC or Pinks? They are still governed by SEC law, but I can name 10 OBVIOUS, BLATANT scams operating right now. Dozens of SEC complaints filed by hundreds of people EVERY DAY for 2 years that I've been following, yet nothing is ever done. In the rare case an action is brought, it's on charges dating back 5 years - after the damage has been done.
I know the OTC/pinks are caveat emptor, etc, but they are still covered under securities law.
W.T.F.? Why are you silly folks worried about this esoteric, tax, fiscal issue. The Gov't will just appeal to a higher power [ed] entity .... and get a bailout. Moral Hazard be DAMNED. Sorry, could not resist ... especially after reading Cheney and Lehrer ... and asking over and over ... "our" leadership here in America boils down to ......
Post a Comment