Utah Couple Would Scam Anyone and Everyone

…Until they got caught.

Steven and Diane Christensen admitted costing the US government between $4 and $7.5 million in tax revenues. An official of US Bank estimates that they lost $13 million. This couple cut a wide swath through the Salt Lake Valley.

But Diane was sentenced to 41 months at ClubFed and Steven received 37 months on Tuesday, so they won’t be bothering Utahans anytime soon. The couple will still need to make restitution to the US government; however, that amount is still to be determined.

News Story: Salt Lake City Tribune

Posted in Tax Evasion | Comments Off on Utah Couple Would Scam Anyone and Everyone

Why You Keep a Gambling Log

The Tax Court reviewed the case of a couple that enjoyed playing the slots in Atlantic City. The IRS thought that the couple were winners; the couple alleged that they lost. What would the Tax Court say?

Terri and Austin Hartsook won $230,825 playing slot machines in 1999 and $293,750 in 2000. They claimed gambling losses (as an itemized deduction) of the same amounts. The IRS allowed at trial $76,314 of losses in 1999 and $55,750 in 2000. According to the Hartsooks, the IRS disallowed all gambling losses at Harrah’s.

The Hartsooks received numerous W-2G’s from Harrah’s. The Hartsooks used a formula to calculate their losses:

“As we understand the way in which petitioners calculated their claimed gambling losses at Harrah’s, petitioners multiplied the number of minutes between gambling winnings at a $100 slot machine or a $25 slot machine, as reflected on the respective Harrah’s substitute Forms W-2G with respect to Aug. 13 and 14 and Sept. 4, 1999, by the amount that they estimated they would have been able to wager within a minute in such a $100 slot machine or such a $25 slot machine if they had played two coins at one time. Mr. Hartsock testified that he would have been able to wager within a minute $1,200, “give or take $200”, in a $100 slot machine and $300 in a $25 slot machine. Mr. Hartsock testified that petitioners reduced the amount so calculated to reflect that they would not have been constantly wagering in slot machines that they were playing because they would have stopped wagering to light up cigarettes, get drinks, or talk with others.”

There’s a problem with this. “[The Court is] unwilling to rely on Mr. Hartsock’s self-serving and uncorroborated testimony and the self-serving and uncorroborated workpapers that petitioners prepared in order to establish that they incurred gambling losses at Harrah’s on certain dates during 1999.” Additionally, they didn’t have any evidence to show gambling losses in 2000.

What should they have had? A contemporaneous logbook would have been a good start. If they belonged to Harrah’s slot club, they should have gotten a printout of their wins and losses. (Of course, they’d also have to claim the gambling wins that were not shown on W-2G’s.) In any case, not only did they lose on the gambling losses, the Court upheld a negligence penalty.

So the next time you play the slots, we hope all you do is win (so you don’t have to worry about the losses). But if you do lose, write it down correctly in a logbook and you should be protected if the IRS knocks on your door.

Case: Hartsook v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-205

Posted in Gambling | Comments Off on Why You Keep a Gambling Log

They Walked A Crooked Mile

It may be the Jewish New Year (La Shana Tovah for those celebrating), but the tax cheats have been busy over the past few days. We have articles from the East Coast to the West Coast and from Europe.

First, from Providence, Rhode Island comes yet another untrustworthy sole. Eric Messier had been advising the gullible that by creating a “corporation sole” they can avoid taxes. There’s no such thing as a corporation sole. He was collecting between $2,500 and $10,000 per soul. (Story here)

Apparently there’s something in the water in the Ocean State. This story from the Providence Journal is about Edward Dacey. Mr. Dacey was convicted of not reporting $122,000 earned by marketing a “debt elimination scheme” that, like the corporation sole, isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Mr. Dacey won’t have to visit Club Fed; instead, he’ll serve five months of home confinement and two years probation.

Closer to home, the Los Angeles Times reported on four tax preparers from nearby Rialto who were inventive. They invented phony deductions, falsified documents for audits, and didn’t report about $1.5 million in income from this fraud that impacted over 11,000 clients.

Meanwhile, we go overseas. Holger Geschwindner of Hof, Germany was a “benefactor and supporter” of NBA star Dirk Nowitzki. The German tax authorities allege that Geschwindner earned “substantial amounts” but didn’t pay any taxes on that, according to this story from Deutsche Presse Agentur. Tax evasion is a crime in Deutschland, too.

An Amarillo doctor will be visiting Club Fed. Stephen Miller was sentenced this past week to 46 months and ordered to pay $970,000 in restitution for attempting to use sham LLCs and sham trusts to avoid taxes. The money was supposed to end up in the Channel Islands.

A Connecticut doctor pleaded guilty to tax evasion, structuring, and health care fraud. Steven Herman skimmed about $870,000 from his business, and then either purchased $700 money orders himself or had household employees do so. He did this over 80 times in order to avoid federal bank transaction laws (and when you do this to avoid those laws, you’re guilty of the crime of “structuring,” which is a felony). Adding insult to injury, he also committed health care fraud by billing elective procedures as “medically necessary.” As this story notes, Mr. Herman faces up to 25 years in prison, must pay back taxes of $374,810 plus penalties and interest, forfeit $236,117 (the amount of the structuring), and reimburse the health insurance company $150,000. It would have been much cheaper to have paid the taxes in the first place. Of course, that’s the case for almost everyone who commits tax evasion.

Posted in Tax Evasion | Comments Off on They Walked A Crooked Mile

Sacked in Tennessee?

When you run for Congress, strange things can happen. Consider this story from Knoxville, home of the University of Tennessee. Heath Shuler is a famous former quarterback for the Volunteers. His NFL career wasn’t lengthy, but he did earn a nice signing bonus. He and his brother formed Heath Shuler Real Estate (HSRE), and they later sold most of their interest in the business. Shuler is running for Congress. And so the story might have gone, but…

…And it’s a big but. The Associated Press happened to find out that HSRE has been “chronically late” in paying its taxes. In fact, they just made a $69,000 late payment. Mr. Shuler, according to the story, is planning on filing a lawsuit to have his name taken off the name of HSRE. I’m not sure how this will be taken in Tennessee politics, but I’m sure he wishes that this story broke in December rather than September.

Posted in Tennessee | 1 Comment

California Propositions: Proposition 1B

I was reading Simon Winchester’s Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded and came across the use of the word “humongous.” In vulcanism, a humongous volcanic event is truly huge. Why am I including this here? Well, Proposition 1B is a humongous bond proposal.

How large? The bond totals $19,925,000,000. Yes, almost $20 billion dollars. That’s a lot of money.

Before I comment further, the goal of the bond measure is laudable: fixing California’s deteriorating infrastructure. The bond measure will allow needed improvements to highways, seismic safety, public transit, and other infrastructure items.

There are, however, a lot of issues with this measure. First, to repay the bonds will cost $38,900,000,000. Yes, nearly $40 billion dollars. That’s double the GDP of Luxembourg. And when bonds are approved, someone must pay for them.

Frankly, I don’t see how this measure can be repaid without a tax increase down the road. I hope I’m wrong, but if this measure is approved our grandchildren will be paying for it in 50 years.

Posted in California | Comments Off on California Propositions: Proposition 1B

If You Admit Fraud…(Part 2)

A little over a month ago we wrote about a Tax Court case where the petitioners had admitted fraud, but wanted to get out of paying the §6663 penalty for fraud. At that time we said, “For once you say you committed fraud, you have to live with the result.”

Today the Tax Court took up another case that Yogi Berra might say was deja vu all over again. Petitioner Henry Uscinski is an attorney who pleaded guilty to evading his 1996 income taxes by filing a fraudulent 1996 tax return. Mr. Uscinski repaid $1,590,000 in restitution. He further admitted that he had failed to report some funds from a client. So in March 2003 the District Court accepted the plea bargain, sentenced Mr. Uscinski to 42 months at Club Fed for tax evasion, and also imposed a $250,000 fine.

And now it’s the IRS’ turn. In 2005 the IRS sent a deficiency notice to Mr. Uscinski for his 1996 taxes. Mr. Uscinski, in his petition to the Tax Court, stated,

“Relief requested is to eliminate and cancel all claimed tax due and penalties imposed. The funds upon which said tax and penalties are imposed were received under a claim of right and were subsequently restored to the U.S. Government in full. Accordingly, no tax should be imposed as the funds were restored.”

Basically, Mr. Uscinski is asking for “collateral estoppel;” that is, because he was prosecuted criminally, he can’t be gone after by the IRS.

The Court stated,

“It is well established that a subsequent guilty plea may be used to establish issue preclusion in a subsequent civil suit where an element of the crime to which the defendant pled guilty is at issue in the second suit….Because the elements of criminal tax evasion and civil tax fraud are identical, petitioner’s prior conviction under section 7201 conclusively establishes the elements necessary for finding fraud under section 6663.” [citations omitted]

Mr. Uscinski also contended that by repaying the government, he stopped the underpayment, and is entitled to relief under §1341. The Tax Court noted, “The relief provided under section 1341, however, applies to the year in which the repayment is made and does not affect the taxpayer’s obligation to report as income, in the year of receipt, items received under a claim of right…Because petitioner’s repayments occurred from 1999 through 2001, section 1341 is inapplicable in determining petitioner’s deficiency for 1996, which is the only year at issue in this proceeding.”

So the Court holds that the petitioner, Mr. Uscinski, is estopped from denying the unreported income on his 1996 tax return and that some of the underpayment is due to fraud (as defined in §6663. But the Court wouldn’t allow full summary judgment to the IRS, stating that Mr. Uscinski can challenge the precise amount of the deficiency. “Consequently, although the current record might leave us in doubt as to petitioner’s prospects for ultimately succeeding in showing error in the notice of deficiency, we shall not deny petitioner an opportunity to present relevant evidence.”

So Mr. Uscinski can get another day in court. But it’s clear he’s facing an uphill battle.

Posted in Tax Fraud | Comments Off on If You Admit Fraud…(Part 2)

“Should You Blog?”

A welcome to those Enrolled Agents who are discovering blogging for the first time. The cover story of the September-October EA Journal is my article, “Should You Blog?” Here’s some brief background on the article, and on tax blogging.

Back in June I responded to an email news blast from the National Association of Enrolled Agents (NAEA). They had credited the wrong blogger for a story, and I let them know that there’s at least one Enrolled Agent who blogs. This eventually led to my agreeing to write “Should You Blog?”

As I mentioned. in the article, blogging is fun but it’s also work. If you decide to blog, do it regularly. Have fun, have your own style, and let me (and the other tax bloggers) know that you’re on the scene! I’ll enjoy adding new tax bloggers to the blogroll on the right.

Posted in Taxable Talk | Comments Off on “Should You Blog?”

Another New Jersey Conviction

I almost labeled this post, “The Shock! The Horror!” Yes, another New Jersey corruption arrest. But my sarcasm quotient is slim when I’m low on sleep (I’m just back from Dallas), and I discover that Jack Westlake, a partner of John Lynch has also pleaded guilty to tax evasion. Mr. Westlake, 76, admitted that he didn’t pay tax on $350,000 in taxes in 1999.

Posted in New Jersey | Comments Off on Another New Jersey Conviction

Taking a Bite Out of Tax Crime

Over the weekend there were several stories about tax scofflaws. They fought the law and the law won.

First, a tax preparer in Georgia filed returns electronically. There’s no problem with that. However, she filed returns for people who had not hired her to prepare their returns, using numbers made out of thin air (she also filed returns for people who gave her information, but used incorrect information). Amazingly enough, these lucky taxpayers got refunds, deposited into bank accounts of friends of the tax preparer (or the refunds were subsequently turned over to the preparer). The preparer, Lisa Lyle, has pleaded guilty to ten counts of tax fraud and will be sentenced on November 30th according to this article.

Meanwhile, in Shelby County, Michigan (suburban Detroit), Kenneth Heath was convicted of four counts of tax evasion and one count of passing a phony document. Mr. Heath believes in the views of convicted tax protestor Irwin Schiff, and didn’t pay federal taxes between 1999 and 2002. That was strike one. Strike two was sending the IRS a “Registered Bill of Exchange.” But there’s no such thing as a Registered Bill of Exchange. Heath, 69, who faces up to 30 years in prison will be sentenced in December according to this story.

>From Utah comes the story of a couple that believed in philanthropy. Both individually and through their business, they gave millions of dollars for the handicapped, an olympic center, and other charitable ventures. They also believed that giving starts at home: they were convicted of tax evasion. They didn’t report overseas income of $4 million to their business. The couple, now divorced, will each spend over two years in jail and pay fines of $60,000 and $75,000. They also must pay the $14,000 cost of their jury trial and pay the back taxes of nearly $300,000 according to this story.

Finally, we have two stories from the swamplands (New Jersey). First, a bar owner harbored illegal aliens and was involved in an illegal alien smuggling ring. He forced the aliens to work off their debts in his bar. And he also didn’t pay taxes on $750,000 of income from his bar. In the second story, the former president of the State Senate in New Jersey pleaded guilty to fraud and tax charges. John Lynch, who used to be involved in New Jersey’s “Democratic Machine,” admitted accepting a payment from a company that was attempting to build a park. Besides accepting the $25,000 payment, he failed to declare $150,000 in income. Lynch faces up to ten years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000.

All-in-all, it was a weekend to forgot for these scofflaws.

Posted in Tax Evasion | Comments Off on Taking a Bite Out of Tax Crime

California Propositions: Proposition 1A

Californians will have a long ballot to wade through this November. Over the next few weeks, we’re going to review all of the tax-related propositions on the ballot, beginning with Proposition 1A.

This is one of five propositions that Governor Schwarzenegger has placed (with the consent of the Legislature) on the ballot. Proposition 1A would require sales tax revenues collected from motor fuel taxes to be used only on transportation improvements. The measure is supported by the Automobile Club, the Highway Patrol, the state police association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and most legislators.

As Bill Leonard, a member of the Board of Equalization, said, “Proposition 1A will let us get started on the backlog of transportation projects, and it will finally put into practice the will of the voters: the taxes we pay at the pump should go to help improve and expand the roads on which we drive.” If you’re a Californian, consider this when you make your choice in November.

Posted in California | Comments Off on California Propositions: Proposition 1A