David Doty remembered as a judge who led with courtesy and compassion



man poses

One of Minnesota’s longest-serving federal judges has died. David Doty would have turned 97 years old on Tuesday. He was best known for his rulings in thorny labor disputes between pro football players and the NFL.

Doty had been working as a private attorney for a quarter century when President Ronald Reagan tapped him to fill the seat of retired judge Miles Lord. After a protracted confirmation process, Doty was about to give up. But his fortunes changed during a 1987 ski trip when he got an unexpected phone call.

“It was the president. And he said I’ve got an appointment here for the district judge in Minnesota. You still want to do it? I go ‘oh yes sir.’ And he said OK I’ll sign it. Hung up, and that was that.”

Doty recounted that moment a few months later in an interview with Robert Stein, his University of Minnesota Law School classmate in the class of 1961 who later became dean.

As a new judge, Doty said he relied on his clerks to analyze arguments and draft orders. Randall Kahnke, now an attorney in Minneapolis, clerked for Doty from 1989-91. He says the judge’s time as a Marine Corps captain in the 1950s shaped his public service ethic and the day-to-day practicalities of managing hundreds of cases.

But Kahnke says Doty was no drill sergeant and knew that the law isn’t abstract.

“He understood that the law, at its heart, ultimately is about affecting the lives of human beings. Cases ultimately affect the lives of individual people, and he never lost sight of that,” Kahnke said.

One of Doty’s first major trials was of 1980s cocaine kingpin Ralph “Plukey” Duke, who is serving life in prison. Doty sentenced Duke’s co-defendant Serena Nunn to nearly 16 years.

A decade later, the judge was among those who petitioned President Bill Clinton to commute Nunn’s sentence over an evidentiary error. In 2000, Doty told MPR News that federal law required him to impose a long sentence, something he did not want to do because of Nunn’s young age and lack of a criminal record.

“A few months would have been very sufficient,” Doty said. “And if she could come out and show that she was rehabilitated and carry on as a good citizen. That should be the end of it. That’s the whole process, the way it should work.”

Nunn later became an attorney and received a full pardon from President Barack Obama.

Criminal cases are a big part of every judge’s life. But Doty is best known for his two decades handling disputes between the NFL and its players. After initially siding with the league, Doty allowed players to sue over the NFL’s restrictive free agency rules.

When a jury struck down a limited free agency system in 1992, Doty issued rulings that helped clear the way for players to move more freely between teams. Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Reggie White later led a class-action lawsuit that brought a better deal for players and salary caps for owners concerned about payroll costs.

Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz said in an interview with MPR News on Monday that Doty could have retired decades ago with his full salary. As a senior judge, Doty had the option to limit his caseload, but still kept a full docket.

“There was never a time in his life when he didn’t work and work hard,” Schiltz said. “He loved the legal work. He loved being in the courtroom. Even at 95 or 96, his lunch schedule, dinner schedule, golf schedule, was way, way busier than mine.”

Schiltz said that he never had any concerns about Doty’s mental acuity. His quick wit and intellect never wavered either in the courtroom or chatting with friends.

Schiltz added that Doty remained in good health until he broke two bones in a fall after exercising and was “completely at peace” that his long life was nearing its end.

Asked in the 1987 interview about the power of his position as a federal judge, Doty recounted his time in the Marines as commander of a nuclear artillery platoon, and made an analogy to the weapons he said he was grateful to have never launched.

“I think the power that’s there, that’s never used, is sometimes more important than the power that’s used,” Doty said. “And I think as a federal district court judge, I’m trying as hard as I can to never overuse the power that I know the judge has.”

Doty said he felt that it was important for him to give back to society through service, whether as a Marine or a judge, and that he hoped to build a reputation for dispensing justice with courtesy and compassion.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


The IRS’s historical abuses led Congress to create specific taxpayer rights, including rights stemming from collection due process (“CDP”) hearings. These administrative hearings are intended to pause IRS collection actions while the IRS Office of Appeals considers whether the collection is both lawful and warranted.

One might assume these rights extend to any liability assessed by the IRS. Since the IRS is part of the U.S. Treasury, it would seem logical that these rights would apply to any liability owed to the Treasury, especially when the Treasury delegates assessment authority for the liability from one of its sub-departments to the IRS, which is another one of its sub-departments.

The fact that a liability originated with another sub-department shouldn’t matter if that original sub-department never handles the liability because it has been fully delegated to the IRS, the other sub-department. However, as the Jenner v. Commissioner, 163 T.C. No. 7, case demonstrates, this assumption is incorrect. The case involves Foreign Bank Account Reporting (“FBAR”) penalties assessed by the IRS.

Facts & Procedural History

This case involves a couple who were assessed FBAR penalties for tax years 2005 through 2009. The penalties relate to foreign bank accounts that were not reported to the Treasury Department.

When the couple did not pay the penalties, the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (“BFS”) informed the couple that funds would be withheld from their monthly Social Security benefits through the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”) to pay these penalties.

In response, the couple submitted Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due Process or Equivalent Hearing, with the IRS. The IRS issued a letter to the couple saying that FBAR penalties are not taxes and therefore not subject to CDP requirements.

The taxpayers filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court under the CDP hearing procedures, which was the subject of the court opinion described in this article.

About FBAR Penalties

FBAR penalties can be imposed on U.S. persons who fail to report certain foreign financial accounts to the government. The reporting requirement generally applies if the aggregate value of all foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 at any time during the calendar year.

This reporting is done on FinCEN Form 114 (formerly TD F 90-22.1). The form is due on April 15th and there is an automatic extension to October 15th.

The amount of the penalties can be severe. Non-willful violations can result in penalties of $10,000 per violation. Willful FBAR violations can result in penalties of the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account balance at the time of the violation. Criminal penalties can also apply in some situations. Notably, for purposes of this article, these penalties are assessed under Title 31 of the U.S. Code (which is the Bank Secrecy Act) and not under the Internal Revenue Code (which is Title 26 of the U.S. Code).

Assessment of FBAR Penalties

While FBAR penalties are not tax penalties, the IRS has been delegated the authority to assess FBAR penalties through a chain of delegation.

The Secretary of Treasury first delegated authority to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). FinCEN is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury that works to detect and prosecute financial crimes and money laundering. FinCEN then redelegated this authority to the IRS for FBAR penalties.

The typical assessment process begins when an IRS agent conducts an audit and proposes penalties. The IRS then issues Letter 3709 proposing the penalties, and account holders have 30 days to either pay the penalty, request an appeals conference, or provide additional information.

The taxpayer may also trigger an assessment by voluntarily submitting FBAR forms after the due date. The IRS will review the late filing and determine whether to impose penalties. When FBARs are filed through FinCEN’s BSA E-Filing System, the IRS receives this information through an information-sharing agreement with FinCEN. The IRS can then review these late filings as part of its normal examination process.

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review

If the taxpayer files a timely request for appeals review, the IRS Office of Appeals has the ability to consider the proposed FBAR penalties, including whether the violations occurred, whether they were willful or non-willful, whether reasonable cause exists, and whether the penalty amounts are appropriate. Appeals officers can sustain, reduce, or eliminate the proposed penalties based on their review of the facts and circumstances.

They can also consider hazards of litigation, meaning they can take into account the IRS’s likelihood of success if the case were to proceed to court. This review is particularly important for willful FBAR penalties, where the government must prove willfulness by clear and convincing evidence in any subsequent litigation. Appeals officers may also consider the ability to pay and can help facilitate alternative payment arrangements if the penalties are sustained.

Remedies After Missing or Unsuccessful Appeal

If account holders miss the appeals deadline or receive an unfavorable appeals decision, there are still several options that may provide remedies.

For example, the account holder can challenge the administrative offset through Treasury procedures. When the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service initiates an offset (such as withholding Social Security benefits), they must provide notice to the account holder. The account holder then has certain due process rights under Title 31, including the right to inspect records, request a review of the debt, and establish a payment schedule. They can also present evidence that the offset would create a financial hardship or that the debt is not valid or legally enforceable.

Account holders can also wait for the government to file suit to collect the penalties and raise their defenses in the collection suit. They do not have to pay the penalty and file a refund claim first with this option. This is different from tax assessments, where taxpayers typically must “pay first, litigate later.” When the government files suit to collect FBAR penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5321(b)(2), the account holder can raise defenses such as reasonable cause, lack of willfulness, statute of limitations, or constitutional challenges. The government bears the burden of proving its case, including proving willfulness by clear and convincing evidence for willful FBAR penalties.

Collection Due Process Not Allowed

Notably absent from the discussion above are the IRS collection programs and procedures. That is the issue in this Jenner court case.

In Jenner, the tax court answers the question as to whether the traditional CDP hearings and rights are available for FBAR penalties. As noted by the court, FBAR penalties are not “taxes” under the Internal Revenue Code and CDP rights only apply to collection of “taxes.”

The court emphasized that the IRS’s authority to assess FBAR penalties does not convert them into tax liabilities. Instead, Title 31 provides its own separate procedures for assessment and collection. The collection mechanism for FBAR penalties is through civil action or administrative offset, not through IRS liens and levies that would give rise to CDP rights.

Thus, while the IRS may assess these penalties, they remain non-tax debts subject to Title 31’s collection procedures rather than the Internal Revenue Code’s collection provisions. The CDP hearing is not a viable option for contesting the assessment or underlying liability for FBAR penalties.

The Takeaway

Unless Congress changes the law, account holders who are assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS do not have fundamental rights, such as CDP rights, that are afforded to taxpayers for tax balances. This is the case even though the same agency whose abuses gave rise to the CDP hearing and CDP rights for taxpayers, the IRS, is involved in assessing FBAR penalties. The remedies outside of the IRS are there, even though they do not afford taxpayers the rights and remedies available for taxes. Account holders have to contend with this when assessed FBAR penalties by the IRS and do not agree with the assessments.

Watch Our Free On-Demand Webinar

In 40 minutes, we’ll teach you how to survive an IRS audit.

We’ll explain how the IRS conducts audits and how to manage and close the audit.  



Source link