By: Derek Hawkins//December 16, 2019//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Steven Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, et al.
Case No.: 18-3232
Officials: HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.
Focus: RICO Claims
Insurance executive Steven Menzies sold over $64 million in his company’s stock but did not report any capital gains on his 2006 federal income tax return. He alleges that his underpayment of capital gains taxes (and the related penalties and interest subsequently imposed by the Internal Revenue Service) was because of a fraudulent tax shelter peddled to him and others by a lawyer, law firm, and two financial services firms. Menzies advanced this contention in claims he brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO and Illinois law. The district court dismissed all claims.
Menzies’s RICO claim falls short on the statute’s pattern of-racketeering element. Courts have labored mightily to articulate what the pattern element requires, and Menzies’s claim presents a close question. In the end, we believe Menzies failed to plead not only the particulars of how the defendants marketed the same or a similar tax shelter to other taxpayers, but also facts to support a finding that the alleged racketeering activity would continue. To conclude otherwise would allow an ordinary (albeit grave) claim of fraud to advance in the name of RICO—an outcome we have time and again cautioned should not occur. In so holding, we in no way question whether a fraudulent tax shelter scheme can violate RICO. The shortcoming here is one of pleading alone, and it occurred after the district court authorized discovery to allow Menzies to develop his claims.
As for Menzies’s state law claims, we hold that an Illinois statute bars as untimely the claims advanced against the lawyer and law firm defendants. The claims against the two remaining financial services defendants can proceed, however.
So we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.