After they get done paying lawyers for their ownership trial, and then on the "don't put me in jail" tax cheat trial... they gonna need a '33 just to pay the lawyers. The others will cover interest and penalties on the tax cheat.
I assume that the IRS, the Treasury Department and the Mint all have a desire to maximize revenue for our dear old Uncle Sam. Thus, if the family loses the case since the coins have always been the property of the USA, the government can sell them and raise money that way without having to share the loot.
However, if the family wins a decision that they own the coins and the government does not, then I assume the IRS and the Pennsylvania tax agency will seek to have the family amend estate tax returns and pay applicable estate taxes on the inherited coins.
What would be interesting would be how one would go about assigning a value to the coins as of 1990 (date of death) in 2007 (or farther into the future when the pending case is finally resolved) for state and federal estate tax purposes. Also would be issues of interest, fines and/or penalties.
These tax related issues require the input of our esteemed Longacre (since he is a tax lawyer charging $1,000.00 per hour). Someone else will have to front his $500,000.00 retainer , since I am not parting with my $100,000.00 retainer
In response to your question about listing the possible ways the 10 coins could have legally left the mint, I will reread the families' legal brief in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss and do a followup post to this thread setting forth a list of the possible ways the family says the coins could have left the mint.
Stay tuned
Further, since I am now hooked on following the developments in this case and reading the papers filed by the parties, I will provide updates to this thread to keep everyone here "in the know" with the latest developments. Consider it one of my contributions to the forums
<< <i>It's my opinion that the coins were never legally private property of the Langboards and so the government's claim on them is legitimate. Nobody (or their descendents) should benefit from pilfered property. Since the government's stance has always been to hunt down and confiscate all 1933 coins, why should the Langboards have any legal basis to claim them as "personal property". The 1933's have always been contraband and many people in the 1930's and 1940's lost gold coins to the secret service. So why should the fact that a wiley old man died with them in his possession entitle the family any benefit? >>
The interesting thing about the point you raise is that the family and their attorney have laid out (and supported by reference to documentation going back to early 1933) multiple different ways that a 1933 double eagle could have in fact left the mint legally. Thus, if there is possible ways for 1933 dated coins to have legally left the mint, the outcome of this case depends on whether the party with the burden of proof can come up with legally admissable evidence that proves that the 10 coins did not legally leave the mint (the government would have to prove this if the government has the burden of proof); or that the 10 coins legally left the mint (the family would have to prove this if the family has the burden of proof).
Again, this case will stand or fall based upon who has the burden of proof. >>
This.
Since there are several ways in which those coins could have gotten out of the mint legally, and none were reported stolen in 1933 -- why do the Langbord's need to prove they were obtained legally?
Do you have receipts for everything of value you own in your house?
Remember -- these things were worth face value in 1933 when they were obtained -- not $7.5 million.
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
"It should disturb every American when property is seized by our Government with no due process" instead it only disturbs those of us that are intelligent enough to understand that the issue is not weather the langbords or izzy switt did anything illegal but that the government has seized private property without due process. even if you are consumed with jealousy and believe that the langbords shouldn't have something you don't have, the concept of our government seizing private property from any legal citizen without due process should infuriate every single taxpayer of this country
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
Comments
After they get done paying lawyers for their ownership trial, and then on the "don't put me in jail" tax cheat trial... they gonna need a '33 just to pay the lawyers. The others will cover interest and penalties on the tax cheat.
<< <i>Who can even try to determine this? Would it have been the value of a type $20 Saint in Choice Uncirculated condition at that time?
I am disturbed by the fact that I have not yet read that the estate tax return has been amended to show to inclusion of the 10 1933 Saints. >>
This is a good point, and one I hadn't considered. Regardless of the legality of the coins, one of two things would seem to be the case:
(1) The family believed the coins are legal to own and failed to declare them as part of Switt's estate for tax purposes;
(2) The family did not include the coins because they thought they were illegal to own, in which case they wouldn't be pursuing this.
Either way it doesn't reflect well on Switt's heirs. That's a side issue at this point, but still one worth pondering.
However, if the family wins a decision that they own the coins and the government does not, then I assume the IRS and the Pennsylvania tax agency will seek to have the family amend estate tax returns and pay applicable estate taxes on the inherited coins.
What would be interesting would be how one would go about assigning a value to the coins as of 1990 (date of death) in 2007 (or farther into the future when the pending case is finally resolved) for state and federal estate tax purposes. Also would be issues of interest, fines and/or penalties.
These tax related issues require the input of our esteemed Longacre (since he is a tax lawyer charging $1,000.00 per hour). Someone else will have to front his $500,000.00 retainer
In response to your question about listing the possible ways the 10 coins could have legally left the mint, I will reread the families' legal brief in opposition to the government's motion to dismiss and do a followup post to this thread setting forth a list of the possible ways the family says the coins could have left the mint.
Stay tuned
Further, since I am now hooked on following the developments in this case and reading the papers filed by the parties, I will provide updates to this thread to keep everyone here "in the know" with the latest developments. Consider it one of my contributions to the forums
<< <i>It's my opinion that the coins were never legally private property of the Langboards and so the government's claim on them is legitimate. Nobody (or their descendents) should benefit from pilfered property. Since the government's stance has always been to hunt down and confiscate all 1933 coins, why should the Langboards have any legal basis to claim them as "personal property". The 1933's have always been contraband and many people in the 1930's and 1940's lost gold coins to the secret service. So why should the fact that a wiley old man died with them in his possession entitle the family any benefit? >>
word
<< <i>Wolf359
The interesting thing about the point you raise is that the family and their attorney have laid out (and supported by reference to documentation going back to early 1933) multiple different ways that a 1933 double eagle could have in fact left the mint legally. Thus, if there is possible ways for 1933 dated coins to have legally left the mint, the outcome of this case depends on whether the party with the burden of proof can come up with legally admissable evidence that proves that the 10 coins did not legally leave the mint (the government would have to prove this if the government has the burden of proof); or that the 10 coins legally left the mint (the family would have to prove this if the family has the burden of proof).
Again, this case will stand or fall based upon who has the burden of proof. >>
This.
Since there are several ways in which those coins could have gotten out of the mint legally, and none were reported stolen in 1933 -- why do the Langbord's need to prove they were obtained legally?
Do you have receipts for everything of value you own in your house?
Remember -- these things were worth face value in 1933 when they were obtained -- not $7.5 million.