Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Who Says There Is No Such Thing as a Second Chance?

Post author:Robert Teuber
Post published:January 25, 2011
Post category:Tax Law

It has now been several years since the Swiss banking giant UBS found itself in trouble for impeding the IRS and conspiring to defraud the United States. The outcome was a negotiated settlement between the U.S. government and UBS that called for the disclosure of the names of U.S. taxpayers holding money overseas. This result was significant due to the commonly overlooked/ignored filing requirements of U.S. persons that have overseas financial interests.

Any U.S. person who has a financial interest in, or signature authority (or other authority) over, any foreign financial account may have to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Account Form TD.90-22.1 (commonly referred to as an FBAR). The requirement is triggered if the aggregate value of these accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during a calendar year. Failing to file an FBAR can result in civil and/or criminal penalties. If the failure to file is deemed “willful,” a penalty equal to the greater of $100,000 or 50 percent of the account balance can be imposed for each failure to file. This means that if someone willfully fails to file the form for three years in a row, the penalties can equal an aggregate of 150 percent of the account balances, wiping out the entire account.

Capitalizing on the publicity of an end to Swiss bank secrecy and the severity of the penalties, the IRS offered an amnesty-like voluntary disclosure option for taxpayers to come clean.

California Parole May Be Broken, But Federal Courts Cannot Fix It

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:January 25, 2011
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Prisoner Rights Speakers at Marquette U.S. Supreme Court

By some curious coincidence, at about the same time that Jonathan Simon was explaining in his Barrock Lecture yesterday that parole has effectively become unavailable in California in homicide cases, the United States Supreme Court was overturning a pair of Ninth Circuit decisions that would have established a basis for federal-court review of parole denials.

The California parole statute indicates that the state Board of Prison Terms “shall set a release date unless it determines that . . . consideration of the public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration.” According to the California Supreme Court, the statute requires that there be ”some evidence ” in support of a conclusion “that the inmate is unsuitable for parole because he or she currently is dangerous.” As Simon discussed, this requirement of some evidence of current dangerousness has been applied by the state courts such that the state can justify a parole denial in nearly any case.

The two cases decided by the Court yesterday in Swarthout v. Cooke (No. 10-333) nicely illustrate Simon’s point.

Murder Sentences Becoming “Too Flat and Too Severe,” Barrock Lecturer Says

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:January 25, 2011
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Speakers at Marquette

A reactor or a radiator?

A radiator performs service by dissipating heat. A reactor generates increasingly intense heat, presenting difficult challenges for how to contain that heat.

Punishment for murder in the United States increasingly resembles a reactor more than a radiator, Prof. Jonathan Simon at Boalt Hall, University of California-Berkeley School of Law, said in a lecture at Marquette University Law School Monday. And like a reactor, the trends in murder sentences are building up heat that presents increasing challenges.