Fluent in English, Spanish & Italian | 888-882-9243

call us toll free: 888-8TAXAID

Blog

Attorney Convicted of Offshore Tax Evasion – This is Not Int’t Tax Planning

September 10, 2019

According to DoJ, a Houston Attorney Convicted of Offshore Tax Evasion Scheme Conspired to Repatriate More Than $18 Million in Untaxed Money Held in Foreign Banks

A Houston, Texas, attorney was convicted on September 6, 2019 of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and three counts of tax evasion.

According to the evidence presented at trial, Jack Stephen Pursley, also known as Steve Pursley, conspired with a former client to repatriate more than $18 million in untaxed income that the client had earned through his company, Southeastern Shipping.

Knowing that his client had never paid taxes on these funds, Pursley designed and implemented a scheme whereby the untaxed funds were transferred from Southeastern Shipping’s business bank account, located in the Isle of Man, to the United States.

Pursley helped to conceal the movement of funds from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by disguising the transfers as stock purchases in United States corporations owned and controlled by Pursley and his client.

At trial, the government proved that Pursley received more than $4.8 million and a 25% ownership interest in the coconspirator’s ongoing business for his role in the fraudulent scheme.

For tax years 2009 and 2010, Pursley evaded the assessment of and failed to pay the income taxes he owed on these payments by, among other means, withdrawing the funds as purported non-taxable loans and returns of capital.

The government showed at trial that Pursley used the money he garnered from the fraudulent scheme for personal investments, and to purchase assets for himself, including a vacation home in Vail, Colorado and property in Houston, Texas.

Judge Lynn Hughes has set sentencing for Dec. 9. Pursley faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years (5) in prison for the conspiracy count, and five (5) additional years in prison for each count of tax evasion. He also faces a period of supervised release, monetary penalties, and restitution.

Have an IRS Criminal Tax Problem? 

  
Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini& Associates, P.A. 
for a FREE Tax HELP Contact Us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com 
orToll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888) 882-9243

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Keeping 2 Sets of Books Gets Business Owner Jail Time!

September 10, 2019

According to DoJ, Long Island Business Owner Pleads Guilty to Obstructing Tax Laws Provided False Business Records to Impede an Internal Revenue Service Investigation.

In Central Islip, New York, a Brentwood, New York, business owner pleaded guilty to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws,

According to court filings and facts presented at the plea proceeding, Jose Cerritos (Cerritos) owned and operated La Centro Americana Corp. (La Centro), a wholesale food distribution business based in Bay Shore, New York, that sold imported food products for resale to New York metropolitan area customers.

Cerritos diverted cash receipts from the business bank accounts, which caused La Centro’s tax returns for 2011 and 2012 to significantly underreport the size of the business - and its profits - to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He also filed his own individual income tax returns, falsely understating the income he received from La Centro.

Cerritos Also Gave The IRS False Business Records,
Which Purported To Show La Centro’s Yearly Sales For 2011 And 2012, But Omitted Millions Of Dollars
In Gross Receipts For Each Year. 

United States District Court Judge Joanna Seybert, who accepted Cerritos’ guilty plea, scheduled sentencing for March 6, 2020. Cerritos faces a statutory maximum sentence of three (3) years in prison. He also faces a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties.

Do You Want to Legally Reduce Your Taxes?



Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888)882-9243.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Do you want to be a Bookie? Don't Forget Your Form 11-C

September 10, 2019

It's that time of the year again, football is back, basketball is about the start and yes who can forget hockey. Along with sports comes sports betting.

If you want to be a Bookie, then don’t forget to file your form Form 11-C - Occupational Tax and Registration Return for Wagering.  

If you accept taxable wagers for yourself and or for another persons, you have to file form 11-C. Form 11-C is used by “agents” or “principals” who accept the taxable wagers to pay the occupational tax on wagering.  

There are two amounts of occupational tax: $50 or $500. For bookies (also known as bookmakers) accepting legal wagers, the occupation tax is $50. For the bookies who are working in areas where gambling is illegal, the tax is $500. How much sense does this make will you apply for a licenseand pay $500, aren't  you admitting that you're committing an illegal act?

Who is a principal? It is one who accepts taxable wagers for his or her own account in the business. This person is responsible for either making a profit or risks losses depending on the outcome of the event or contest for which the wager is accepted.  On the other hand, an agent accepts taxable wagers on the behalf of principal. Both have to file Form 11-C. But don’t get confused, illegal gambling is still a illegal gambling. 


But if you are going accept wages don’t forget to file the 11-C. There are other issues and forms that you need to be aware if you engage in gambling activities or are planning to engage in gambling activities.   You should seek the guidance from a professional to know what you have to do to comply with the tax laws.  By:  Luis O Rivera, CPA, CFF, CFE, CGMA, PI
 
Want To Hedge Your Bets on Tax Problems

 

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 

Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888)882-9243.

Read more at: Tax Times blog

“IRS Should Have Known We Changed our Address – TC Says No.

September 10, 2019

The Tax Court has ruled in Chapman, TC Memo 2019-110 that IRS properly mailed a deficiency notice to taxpayers' last known address. The taxpayers did not live at that address at the time the deficiency notice was mailed and had argued that the IRS Appeals Officer should have known that they didn't live at that address.
 Before assessing liability for unpaid taxes, IRS must send a notice of deficiency to the taxpayer's last known address by certified mail or registered mail. (Code Sec. 6212(a), Code Sec. 6213(a))
Within ninety days after the notice of deficiency is mailed, the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Absent proper mailing of the notice of deficiency, subsequent assessments may be enjoined. (Code Sec. 6213(a))
Under Code Sec. 6212(b)(1), a notice of deficiency provides sufficient notice if sent to the taxpayer's last known address. Reg § 301.6212-2(a) provides that a taxpayer's last known address is the address shown on the most recently filed and properly processed return unless the taxpayer gives the IRS clear and concise notification of a different address.
The taxpayers were Mr. and Mrs. Chapman. IRS audited their 2006 return in 2012. At the time of the audit, the Chapmans lived in Hawaii. The last return that they filed before the audit began was their 2011 return, and it showed their address as that of their tax practitioner in Los Angeles. 
IRS proposed a deficiency, and the Chapmans protested this proposal. They met several times with Appeals Officer Lipetzky. Thereafter, IRS issued a notice of deficiency, which it sent to the Los Angeles address.
The Chapmans filed suit in Tax Court, but they did so well after the 90 days allowed under Code Sec. 6213(a). They claimed they never received the notice of deficiency and that the notice was invalid. They argued that, via their and their tax practitioner's interactions with Lipetzky, IRS should have known that they were living in Hawaii and, therefore, that their Hawaii address was their last known address.
The Court ruled that the Chapmans did not meet the "updated by clear and concise notification of a different address" requirement in Reg § 301.6212-2(a) and, therefore, the notice of deficiency was properly sent to their last known address.
The Court said that the taxpayer's argument was contrary to case law dating back several decades and contrary to the reg. 
Additionally, the Court said, accepting the taxpayer's argument would impose an unreasonable administrative burden on IRS; IRS would need to systematically record in a central file all address information acquired in any fashion.
Have a Tax Problem?

Contact the Tax Lawyers at 
Marini & Associates, P.A.
 
 
for a FREE Tax Consultation Contact us at:
www.TaxAid.com or www.OVDPLaw.com or
Toll Free at 888-8TaxAid (888)882-9243.

 
 
 

Read more at: Tax Times blog

Live Help