Understanding the charge of tax evasion. In the world of federal criminal tax defense, to have a chance to win it is mandatory that both the taxpayer and his legal counsel know the intricate laws and rules that apply to criminal tax cases.
A citizen of the United Kingdom held a green card in the United States. He was indicted for not filing U.S. income tax returns and FBARs. The taxpayer challenged the constitutionality of the indictment.
The evidence at trial fairly established that Lynch possessed superior knowledge of tax and corporate laws which he used to keep Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") agents from being able to collect taxes due for several entities that related to a collection of businesses related to indoor ice skating - by shifting assets and employees among several entities.
Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizes the trial court to strike surplusage from the indictment.
The Fifth Amendment protects individual taxpayers from being compelled to testify when such testimony is incriminating. This rule has been held to apply to the records in the custody and control of the taxpayer. However, when the taxpayer is required to maintain the records for non-law enforcement reasons that are public in nature, the Required Records Doctrine authorizes the government to subpoena such records. This is recognized as an exception to the Fifth Amendment.
I person responsible for paying over payroll taxes may not escape responsibility through the use of corporate formalities and structures.
Taxpayers who find that they are the target of an IRS tax investigation for possible criminal tax violations are presented with difficult choices that often affect the ultimate outcomes of their cases.
Defendants in a FBAR penalty case argued that the Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service has opined that the willfulness standard for purposes of 31 U.S.C. § 5321 is the same as the criminal standard. IRS CCA 200603026. However, the Court held that Chief Counsel Advice may not be used or cited as precedent. 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3) Defendant also argued that the IRS manual stated that the definition of "willfully" was the same for criminal and civil cases. The Court held that the IRS was not bound by statements made in its manual. The Court held that the definition of "willfully" included reckless disregard for the tax laws.