Skatteforvaltningen v. Cedar Hill Capital Investments LLC Roth 401(K) Plan, 1:19-cv-01922

Customs and Tax Administration of the Kingdom of Denmark (SKAT) brought multiple actions to recover funds allegedly paid out via a massive fraudulent tax refund scheme targeting Danish dividend withholding.
SKAT alleged that U.S. pension funds and their associates falsely claimed tax-exempt status and ownership of Danish securities to obtain over $2.1 billion in refunds.
Defendant Michael Ben-Jacob (former law firm partner) was alleged to have played a central role in structuring entities and schemes, particularly relating to the Schedule A pension plans.
In April 2018, a tolling agreement was executed (and later extended) regarding potential claims; disputes arose as to its effect on time-bar defenses.
In June 2021, after discovery of new evidence allegedly indicating deeper involvement, SKAT filed a fresh complaint against Ben-Jacob for conspiracy to defraud and aiding and abetting fraud.
Ben-Jacob moved for summary judgment, arguing SKAT’s claims were time-barred either by the tolling agreement’s terms or New York’s statute of limitations for fraud, as interpreted under the “discovery rule.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the tolling agreement bar claims against Ben-Jacob?	Agreement only covered claims that would’ve expired during its term	Agreement bars the claims because they were not timely filed after the toll expired	Tolling agreement doesn’t bar claims; at most ambiguous, so factual dispute remains
Is the June 2021 Complaint time-barred by New York law?	Claims timely because SKAT could not have reasonably discovered facts before 2021	SKAT knew or should have known enough of the fraud and Ben-Jacob's involvement by 2019	Disputed factual issues preclude summary judgment; jury could find SKAT acted reasonably
Did SKAT know facts sufficient to infer Ben-Jacob's role?	Much of Ben-Jacob's Schedule A involvement was only revealed post-privilege waiver	Earlier complaints and settlement exclusions reflect SKAT’s prior knowledge	Jury could find SKAT lacked facts to draw reasonable inference pre-2021
Are SKAT’s 2019 pleadings conclusive admissions?	SKAT not bound by prior pleadings, especially as Ben-Jacob denied their claims	SKAT should be bound by its prior broader allegations	Court exercises discretion not to treat them as conclusive

Sargiss v. Magarelli, 12 N.Y.3d 527 (NY high court reiterates plaintiff’s burden to show fraud could not have been discovered earlier under two-year discovery rule)
Cantor Fitzgerald Inc. v. Lutnick, 313 F.3d 704 (statutes of limitations in diversity cases governed by state law)
Koenig v. Smith, 133 N.E. 669 (NY 1921) (discussing discovery of fraud standard)
Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 94 F.4th 218 (pleadings and the discretion to treat admissions conclusively or not depending on the context)