Tax Problem Attorney Blog

Tax Evasion and Swiss Banking Giant UBS

July 18, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

Swiss banks have long held a reputation for being the place to go for secrecy. The mystique may, however be crumbling. Last month a District Court judge in Miami, Florida granted an Internal Revenue Service John Doe summons request. The court ordered UBS to turn over records with the names of US taxpayers who requested their accounts be kept hidden from the IRS. Undoubtedly the IRS believes that these taxpayers may have committed tax evasion by failing to report income. U.S taxpayers who have foreign bank accounts are generally required to report income from those accounts on their U.S. tax returns. In addition, they are required to declare the existence of these offshore bank accounts on their tax returns, and they are required to file Form TDF 90-22.1. Failure to file the Form TDF 90-22.1 can result in both criminal tax penalties, and civil tax penalties. The criminal tax penalties can result in a fine of not more than $ 250,000, or five years in prison, or both. 31 U.S.C. 5322(a).

The IRS has long had a voluntary disclosure program which provides some assurances to taxpayers who wish to go confess their sins to the IRS, before the IRS knows they have comitted tax fraud . It is questionable whether taxpayers who are clients of UBS meet the requirements of the voluntary disclosure program. Nevertheless there still may be room for avoiding tax evasion charges.

Still the civil tax penalties can be quite onerous. For willful violations occurring prior to October 23, 2004, a penalty not to exceed the greater of an amount equal to the balance of the account at the time of the violation (not to exceed $100,000) or $25,000.

Income Tax Evasion Scheme Thwarted By IRS

July 10, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

Michael Fuller, an accountant from Florida, and Carl Perry, a food broker from Greenville, South Carolina, were sentenced on May 5, 2008 in federal court for tax evasion. Fuller was found guilty by a jury in July of 2007 and Perry pleaded guilty in May 2007 for conspiracy to defraud the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 371. United States Circuit Judge William Wilkins sentenced Fuller and Perry to twelve months and one day in prison and three years probation, respectively.

Fuller and Perry committed tax evasion during a period from the late 1990’s till 2001. According to the Department of Justice, Perry used offshore accounts and other entities, which were set up by Fuller, to hide income from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). A credit card was also set up with another offshore bank which was funded with Perry’s untaxed income. Fuller filed false income tax returns and other documents with the IRS to hide their tax evasion scheme.

If you have been accused of tax evasion contact the Southern California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Tax Evasion and Tacos

July 2, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

Apparently there must be a lot of money in tacos. Karl James, a former owner and operator of more than 50 Taco Bell franchises in Southern California and Arizona, was sentenced to serve 36 months in jail and three years of supervised release months for bankruptcy fraud and tax evasion. James was also ordered to pay $1,121,829 to creditors who were victims of the bankruptcy fraud and $1,169,957 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for unpaid taxes.

James, president and CEO of Golden West Tacos, Inc., pled guilty to charges of bankruptcy fraud and tax evasion on October 19, 2005. According to a press release issued by the Department of Justice, James’ tax fraud involved failing to report over $3 million in diverted corporate funds on his personal income tax returns. James concealed the transactions by moving company assets to other company accounts and accounts in the name of others.

If you have been accused of tax fraud or tax evasion contact the Southern California tax lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Innocent Spouse Relief Granted by Tax Court

June 13, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The United States Tax Court (Tax Court) granted innocent spouse relief to Chrystina Nihser, overturning a decision by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) . Nihser v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-135. Ms. Nihser had applied for innocent spouse relief under Internal Revenue Code § 6015(f), so called “equitable relief.” This is, in my view, the most difficult type of innocent spouse relief to obtain.

In ruling that the IRS had abused its discretion in not granting innocent spouse relief, the Tax Court applied the eight-factor balancing test of Rev. Proc. 2000-15, 2001-C.B. 448. One of the eight factors is whether or not the requesting spouse suffered “abuse” at the hands of the non-requesting spouse, and the case contains a lengthy discussion of what constitutes “abuse” for the purposes of determining whether equitable innocent spouse relief is available. The Tax Court held that something less than physical abuse may qualify. The Tax Court looked to the medical literature to create at least a partial list of the factors deemed to be psychologically abusive. It determined that a psychologically abusive spouse is one who may: (1) isolate the victim; (2) encourage exhaustion by, for example, intentionally limiting food or interrupting sleep; (3) behave in an obsessive or possessive manner; (4) threaten to commit suicide, to murder the requesting spouse, or to cause the death of family or friends; (5) use degrading language including humiliation, denial of victim’s talents and abilities, and name calling; (6) abuse drugs or alcohol, including administering substances to the victim; (7) undermine the victim’s ability to reason independently; or (8) occasionally indulge in positive behavior in order to keep hope alive that the abuse will cease.

Based upon these factors the Tax Court decided that Ms. Nihser had been abused, and in part because she met that test, the IRS had abused its discretion in failing to grant her request for innocent spouse relief.

Innocent Spouse Relief Available Despite Incomplete Adminstrative Record

June 10, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The United States Tax Court (Tax Court) has held that in innocent spouse cases under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6015 it will consider evidence at trial that was not part of the administrative record. Porter v. Commissioner, 130 T.C. No. 10 (2008). The innocent spouse ruling in Porter was consistent with the Tax Court’s earlier ruling in Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 32 (2004), vacated on unrelated jurisdictional grounds 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).

Ms. Porter submitted a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief to the IRS. Ultimately, the IRS granted innocent spouse relief as to a portion of the tax liability, but denied innocent spouse relief with respect to the remainder. Ms. Porter filed a Petition with the Tax Court to dispute the Internal Revenue Service’s unfavorable determination. When she got to the Tax Court, the IRS tried to prevent Ms. Porter, who was not represented by a tax attorney, from presenting all of her evidence. The IRS tax attorneys argued that judge could only here evidence that had previously been submitted to the IRS. The Tax Court held that in cases where someone is requesting innocent spouse relief, he or she is entitled to a trial de novo. That is she is entitled to present all of her evidence without regard to whether it was previously provided to the IRS.

If you believe that you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief contact the tax attorneys at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Tax Fraud Scheme Alleged by IRS

June 5, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) is alleging a massive tax fraud scheme by two European bankers. They have been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to defraud the IRS pursuant to 18 U.S.C 371. According to the indictment among other things Bradley Birkenfeld, a former USB banker and US citizen, and Mario Staggl, a Liechtenstein citizen and resident, assisted an unnamed United States real estate developer in evading United States income taxes on approximately $200 million of assets held in offshore bank accounts.

The defendants allegedly committed tax fraud by falsifying Swiss Bank documents, by falsifying IRS Forms W-8BEN, by failing to issue IRS Forms 1099, by failing to prepare IRS Forms W-9, and by failing to adhere to the terms of the Qualified Intermediary Agreement with the IRS. The Qualified Intermediary Agreement was a voluntary agreement made between the Swiss Bank and the IRS in 2001 to which the Swiss Bank agreed to identify and document any customers who received reportable United States source income, as well as file appropriate tax documents with the IRS. This agreement was a departure from previous Swiss Bank secrecy laws which concealed bank information for US clients from the IRS. The defendants helped their US clients conceal their ownership of the accounts therefore evading the Swiss Banks obligation to report that information to the IRS.

According to the press release issued by the Department of Justice Tax Division the defendants marketed their services to wealthy United States clients by claiming that Swiss and Liechtenstein bank secrecy was impenetrable and could help their clients evade United States income taxes. The conspirators allegedly assisted their US clients in preparing false IRS documents, advised their clients to destroy any records of offshore bank accounts, and facilitated the filing of false IRS tax returns.

IRS Tax Fraud Charges Upheld

May 30, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to dismiss tax fraud charges leveled by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) at the owner of a small business. United States v. Greve, 490 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2007). The case illustrates the perils of representing yourself in a civil tax audit involving significant omissions of income because one never knows when a civil tax audit can turn into a criminal tax problem. The facts were that Mr. Greve operated a snow plow business, and prepared his own tax returns. In preparing those tax returns he omitted a portion of his income. When the tax audit began he proceeded to confess his sins to the IRS tax auditor, but at the same time withheld significant information from her. In addition, he apparently provided false documents to the IRS in the course of the tax audit. To top it off he transferred his home into a trust shortly before the tax audit began.

After the tax audit was part-way done Greve got around to hiring a tax lawyer. The court’s opinion does not disclose whether the tax attorney had experience handling criminal tax problems. The tax attorney met with the IRS agent, and apparently received assurances that the tax audit would be “wrapped up pretty quickly” once certain requested documents were turned over. Behind the scenes, however, the IRS agent was meeting with the Tax Fraud Coordinator, and plotting a criminal tax case. After he was indicted, Greve attempted to have evidence supressed on the theory that his cooperation had been induced by false promises that if he cooperated the matter would be resolved without a referal to the IRS’ Criminal Investigation Divsion (CID). The Court did not see it that way. Although the IRS agent failed to inform Greve that she was considering referring the case for referral to CID the Court held she was not required to do so.

The Greve case illustrates a classic eggshell tax audit, and how treachorous the waters are for those who have omitted signficant income from their tax returns who are picked for a tax audit. For anyone in that situation representation by a skilled tax lawyer is critical.

Southern California Tax Return Preparer Convicted of Tax Fraud

May 16, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

A Southern California tax return preparer, Matthew Carl Berry, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS pursuant to 18 U.S.C 371, and three counts of filing false federal income tax returns. According to the indictment among other things Berry prepared false documents to be used in IRS tax audits. According to the press release issued by the Department of Justice Tax Division’s criminal tax attorneys, Berry prepared fraudulent tax returns by claiming mortgage interest deductions for taxpayers who did not own homes. Berry faces up to 5 years imprisonment, and a fine of up to $250,000 for the conspiracy conviction, and another three years for the criminal tax convictions for filing false income tax returns. Berry could also be subject to civil tax preparer penalties pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6694.

If you have concerns about exposure to criminal tax fraud penalties or civil tax fraud penalties contact the tax dispute lawyers at Brager Tax Law Group, A P.C.

Innocent Spouse Relief Not Permitted by Ninth Circuit

May 15, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California upheld a decision of the United States Tax Court (Tax Court) denying innocent spouse relief pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 6015. Generally spouses filing joint income tax returns are both liable for any taxes due. In certain circumstances, however, one spouse may be entitled to so-called innocent spouse relief. One of the keys to obtaining innocent spouse relief, however, is making the request in a timely manner. There are a number of different deadlines which must be met, or else innocent spouse relief will be lost. In Huynh v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-180 the taxpayer ran afoul of Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) . Not surprisingly the tax law requires that if a taxpayer wishes to claim innocent spouse relief it must be asserted in the same Tax Court case in which the taxpayer is disputing an income tax deficiency. However, Internal Revenue Code § 6015(g)(2) creates an exception if the innocent spouse claim was not an issue in the Tax Court proceeding. The exception to the exception, however, is that if the putative innocent spouse “participated meaningfully” in the proceeding than she can not later claim innocent spouse status.

The Tax Court noted that Mrs. Huynh participated in the prior tax deficiency proceeding by among other things, being present at meetings with the IRS’ Appeals Office, as well participating in pre-trial preparations, and settlement negotiations. Under these circumstances the Tax Court refines to allow Mrs. Huynh to later claim innocent spouse relief. Ms. Huynh was not represented by a tax attorney in either the first or second proceeding. Had she been properly advised by a tax attorney she would have raised her innocent spouse claim in the first proceeding.

If you believe you may be entitled to innocent spouse relief, contact California State Bar Certified Tax Specialist Dennis Brager, Esq.
Continue Reading ›

Criminal Tax Problems for Ex-New York Yankee

May 14, 2008 | by Dennis N. Brager

David Szen, the former traveling secretary for the New York Yankees, was sentenced on April 4, 2008 to 2 years probation for tax crimes. Szen was also ordered to pay a tax debt of approximately $10,285 in taxes, plus tax penalties and interest, as well as a fine in the amount of $7,500. Szen had waived his right to indictment and plead guilty to one count of filing a false tax return pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 7206(1). It is likely that Szen will have additional civil tax debts.

According to the IRS, Szen while an employee of the New York Yankees, failed to report tip income of approximately $53,350 on his individual income tax returns for the tax periods 2001 through 2005. The tips came from unidentified players and coaches ranging from a few hundred to $10,000.

Sven took a leave of absence from the Yankees in July of 2007 pending the investigation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation Division and was later fired by the Yankees after pleading guilty.