Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. v. United States
125 F.3d 79, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 29857, 80 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 6523 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law firm's good-faith but objectively unreasonable belief that disclosing a client's identity on an IRS cash transaction report violates attorney-client privilege does not constitute "reasonable cause" to waive the penalty for intentional disregard of the reporting requirement. The standard for "intentional disregard" of a civil tax reporting rule is a voluntary and conscious act, not one done with a bad purpose or evil motive.
Facts:
- Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C. is a law firm specializing in criminal defense.
- During the summer of 1993, the law firm undertook the representation of a client facing federal drug and money laundering charges.
- The client paid Lefcourt over $10,000 in cash for these legal services.
- On July 9, 1993, the law firm submitted a required IRS Form 8300, which reports cash transactions over $10,000.
- The firm deliberately omitted the client's name from the Form 8300.
- Gerald Lefcourt attached an affidavit to the form asserting that revealing the client's name would prejudice the client and was protected by attorney-client privilege and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Procedural Posture:
- On December 14, 1993, the IRS served Lefcourt with a Notice of Proposed Penalties.
- Following an unsuccessful conference, the IRS assessed a $25,000 penalty against the law firm on August 8, 1994.
- In September 1994, Lefcourt paid the full penalty and then filed a claim for a refund with the IRS.
- The IRS notified Lefcourt that it would not grant the refund.
- On December 6, 1994, Lefcourt filed a tax refund action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, affirming the penalty.
- Lefcourt, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a law firm's good-faith belief that disclosing a client's identity on an IRS Form 8300 would violate attorney-client privilege constitute 'reasonable cause' sufficient to waive the penalty for 'intentional disregard' of the reporting requirement under 26 U.S.C. § 60501?
Opinions:
Majority - Walker, Circuit Judge
No. A law firm's good-faith belief that disclosing client-identifying information violates attorney-client privilege does not constitute 'reasonable cause' for non-compliance where established precedent holds otherwise. The court first addressed whether Lefcourt's conduct amounted to 'intentional disregard.' It rejected the firm's argument that the heightened 'bad faith' standard from criminal tax cases like Cheek v. United States should apply. For civil penalties, 'intentional disregard' simply requires a voluntary, conscious, and intentional act of non-compliance, not an evil motive. Since Lefcourt knew the form required the client's name and purposefully omitted it, its conduct was willful. The court then analyzed whether the penalty should be waived for 'reasonable cause' under § 6724. It held that 'reasonable cause' is an objective standard, measured by the standard of care a reasonably prudent attorney would use. Reviewing Second Circuit precedent, including United States v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C. and In re Grand Jury Subpoena...Shargel, the court found the law was clear that a client's identity and fee information are not privileged, even if disclosure could incriminate the client in the very case for which the attorney was retained. Because this 'incrimination rationale' had been squarely rejected, Lefcourt's legal position was not objectively reasonable, and thus it failed to establish reasonable cause for its non-compliance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for claiming 'reasonable cause' to excuse non-compliance with federal tax reporting requirements. It clarifies that for civil penalties, 'intentional disregard' focuses on the voluntariness of the act, not the actor's subjective motive, distinguishing it from the willfulness standard in criminal tax law. The case significantly curtails attorneys' ability to use attorney-client privilege as a shield against disclosing client-identifying information on Form 8300, establishing in the Second Circuit that the mere possibility of incrimination is not a 'special circumstance' justifying non-disclosure. This holding compels legal professionals to prioritize compliance with clear statutory duties over even strongly-held, but objectively unreasonable, interpretations of their ethical obligations to clients.
