From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
United States v. Hom
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
45 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (2014)
Facts
In 2006 and 2007, John Hom (defendant) participated in online gambling via two poker websites called PokerStars.com and PartyPoker.com. Both websites allowed Hom to deposit and withdraw funds. Hom used Fire-Pay.com, an online financial institution, to transfer money to and from the websites. The total combined funds in Hom’s website and FirePay accounts was at times over $10,000. PokerStars, PartyPoker, and FirePay were all located outside of the US, but PokerStars likely had accounts in the US. Under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (the act), individuals are required to file a Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report (FBAR) for foreign accounts that exceed $10,000 in the previous year. However, Hom did not file an FBAR until 2010, and he failed to include his FirePay account. Therefore, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) (plaintiff) assessed Hom with civil penalties. Hom argued that the location of his accounts should be determined based on the geographic location of the actual funds and that it was possible that the funds were located in the US. However, the IRS argued that the location of Hom’s accounts should be determined based on the locations of the financial institutions and therefore that Hom’s accounts were in fact foreign because PokerStars, PartyPoker, and FirePay were all located outside of the US. The IRS moved for summary judgement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alsup, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.