
James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: James F. McDonough
Date: February 13, 2013

Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comUBS will not be required to pay damages to U.S. clients who were caught for tax law violations and forced to pay back taxes, interest, and penalties to the Internal Revenue Service.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago handed down the ruling, and scolded the “tax cheats” for seeking recovery in the “travesty” of a lawsuit, according to Reuters. Matthew Thomas, Himanshu Patel, and Mathilde Guetta, three former bank clients, brought the suit against UBS claiming that the Swiss bank did not meet its obligation to inform them that they had to declare their accounts to the IRS and pay any taxes owed. The clients eventually chose to participate in the IRS’ Voluntary Disclosure Program, and were required to pay their taxes plus interest and a 20 percent penalty.
The case was first brought before U.S. District Judge John Darrah, who dismissed the case last June. In the most recent ruling, the court asserted that no breach of contract or failure to perform fiduciary responsibilities existed on the part of UBS.
“The plaintiffs are tax cheats, and it is very odd, to say the least, for tax cheats to seek to recover their penalties from the source, in this case UBS, of the income concealed from the IRS,” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote in the ruling, according to Bloomberg. “This lawsuit, including the appeal, is a travesty.”
In 2009, UBS faced punishment for its admitted role in helping thousands of U.S. clients evade taxes and hide income in offshore accounts. Although no criminal charges were pursued, the Swiss bank was forced to pay a settlement of $780 million to avoid further prosecution. It has since released thousands of names and account information on U.S. accounts.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Business mediation is a confidential, voluntary process in which a neutral third party helps companies negotiate a resolution to a commercial dispute without going to trial. Because working with a mediator is very different from litigating in the courtroom, it is important to understand how commercial mediation works, when it makes sense for your dispute, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The five most common causes of construction defect litigation are design defects, substandard materials, workmanship defects, code violations, and subsurface defects. Because these flaws can compromise a building’s integrity, functionality, or safety, they frequently lead to disputes involving multiple parties and high financial stakes. Key takeaways: What is Construction Defect Litigation? Construction litigation is complex, […]
Author: Paul Grossman

The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Author: Paul Grossman

New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!