Archives Aug. 6, 2016

Tax preparer filed tax returns for client with the same deductions that had been previously disallowed by the IRS.

Taxpayer moved to suppress the evidence obtained by a search warrant. A Frank's hearing was held and the Court found that the evidence was admissible. Taxpayer then entered a plea agreement. At sentencing the court denied taxpayer to call an expert to testify as to the tax loss after accelerated depreciation. The Court on appeal affirmed.

In an insider trading case, false statements allegedly made to the NASD were not permitted to be introduced into evidence however, evidence that the profits from the trades were not reported on the tax returns of the defendant was permitted.

Taxpayer who had been banned from preparing tax returns for 15 years was indicted on 21 counts of assisting the preparation of tax returns pursuant to 7206.
A condition of the bond was no tax return preparation due to danger to the community. Danger to community is not limited to physical violence.

Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to extort and filing false tax returns. They appealed the sufficiency of the evidence and the Court's refusal to severe the tax counts.

In Order for the Court to Order the Taxpayer to be Deported to Spain for an Alleged Tax offense, Spain had to Establish Probable Cause.

Taxpayer made large profits selling guns. At trial he was acquitted of all felony charges. However, he was convicted of two misdemeanor tax charges pursuant to 26 USC 7203. The taxpayer appeal because the court did not permit the defendant's expert to testify as to the taxpayer's intent because it was the ultimate issue for the jury to decide. Taxpayer's counsel failed to properly rephrase the questions to get past the government's objection.

Taxpayers charged with filing false tax returns sought to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of two search warrants based upon alleged deception by the agents. Alternatively, Defendant requested a Franks hearing. See, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

Taxpayer appealed her conviction for tax evasion (7201) and the 48 month sentence. Taxpayer alleged that the court erred by giving an inadequate limiting instruction as to the proper use of uncharged conduct. Taxpayer did not prove substantive rights were affected.