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.
Tag archives: tax-fraud
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.
A taxpayer requested the trial court to instruct the jury that the willful failure to pay a tax is a lesser included offense of the charge of tax evasion. The trial court committed reversible error by refusing the taxpayer's requested instruction.
Generally, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are based upon tax loss. The definition normally does not include interest and penalties. However, when a taxpayer is convicted of a tax offense in which he attempted to evade payment of the tax, interest and penalties, the Court may include interest and penalties in its calculation of tax loss.
Two Kentucky men were sentenced to between five and more than six years in prison today after pleading guilty in April and May to conspiring to defraud the United States, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
Veronica Fairchild was convicted on four counts of filing false tax returns pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7206 for failing to accurately report the amount of funds she received for sex. The taxpayer appealed the verdict in part because the Court refused her request that the jury be instructed that they must unanimously agree as to person who paid her the funds. The verdict was affirmed.