I read an interesting newsy article on tax crimes that readers might find interesting: Brian Lisi, The biggest tax evaders in US history on the anniversary of Leona Helmsley's 1989 conviction (8/30/16), here. The article discusses Helmsley and other prominent persons convicted of tax evasion or having large tax debts.
The "taxpayers" discussed are:
Leona Helmsley (Wikipedia here)
The appellate decision in her appeal from her criminal tax convictions is United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1991), cert denied, 502 U.S. 1091 (1991), here. The article pictures Ms. Helmsley with Alan Dershowitz who led her team of lawyers on appeal (See the attorney list in the linked case.) She was represented at trial by a friend, Jerry Feffer, who famously is reported to have opened his closing argument to the jury by admitting that his client was a "tough bitch" but adding in her defense that being a tough bitch is not a crime. See Willliam Glaberson, Helmsley Jury Outlines by Lawyers (NYT 7/6/89), here. That strategic move did not work, hence the appeal. Helmsley's name has appeared frequently in Federal Tax Crimes Blog entries. See here.
OJ Simpson (Wikipedia here)
Simpson was a prominent sports figure who was tried and acquitted for the murder of his wife and her friend. I don't believe he was convicted of a tax crime, but he did owe tax to the State of California. I don't believe that I have ever mentioned Simpson in Federal Tax Crimes entries. I think he had only a civil tax liability and was never prosecuted for a tax crime.
Jack Abramoff (Wikipedia here)
Abramoff was a Washington lobbyist whose name was "synonymous with corruption in politics." I don't think he was convicted of a tax crime, but I have mentioned the name Abramoff only once in a Federal Tax Crimes Blog. See Sentencing - Plea Bargaining and the Right to Trial (9/25/11), here.
Walter Anderson (Wikipedia here)
Anderson was convicted of tax crimes prior to my Federal Tax Crimes Blog getting started but has appeared several times in Federal Tax Crimes Blog entries. See here.
H. Ty Warner (Wikipedia here)
Warner was also convicted of tax related crimes and has appeared prominently several times in Federal Tax Crimes Blog entries principally because of the amount involved (including the FBAR penalty of over $50 million and because of his lenient sentence. See here.
Showing posts sorted by date for query walter anderson. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query walter anderson. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Walter Anderson Re-Appears But Unsuccessfully (9/9/12)
Walter Anderson has occupied the attention of the IRS and the courts for some time now. (See his Wikipedia entry, here, appropriately titled "Walter Anderson (tax evader)." I have previously blogged on him -- Walter Anderson -- The Fight Continues (2/2/11), here.
Mr. Anderson just lost an appeal regarding his civil tax liability for the years for which he was convicted. See Anderson v. Commissioner, 698 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2012), here. The gravamen of the holding on appeal is the well settled proposition that a tax evasion conviction is collateral estoppel for the year(s) of conviction as to tax fraud for purposes of the civil fraud penalty and the unlimited statute of limitations. The amount can still be in issue, but Mr. Anderson ultimately stipulated the amount in the Tax Court. Thus the court said early in the opinion that "we agree with the numerous courts that have held that, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a conviction for criminal tax evasion conclusively establishes the defendant's civil liability for tax fraud for the same year." (Citations omitted.) In reaching the conclusion, the court analyzed the basis for his plea agreement and determined that it necessarily included as admission that certain income was taxable to him and that the admission was necessary to the conviction.
Mr. Anderson also argued that the IRS's concession in the Tax Court as to three years for which Mr. Anderson had not been convicted was necessarily a concession as to the two years for which he was convicted, arguing that the fact patterns were the same. The IRS's concession for the nonconviction years, however, was a strategic one because most of the income was in the years of conviction and thus having to mount the substantial burden of proving fraud and the tax involved for the nonconviction years was not justified. But, that concession was not a concession that the taxpayer had not committed fraud in those years.
Mr. Anderson just lost an appeal regarding his civil tax liability for the years for which he was convicted. See Anderson v. Commissioner, 698 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2012), here. The gravamen of the holding on appeal is the well settled proposition that a tax evasion conviction is collateral estoppel for the year(s) of conviction as to tax fraud for purposes of the civil fraud penalty and the unlimited statute of limitations. The amount can still be in issue, but Mr. Anderson ultimately stipulated the amount in the Tax Court. Thus the court said early in the opinion that "we agree with the numerous courts that have held that, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a conviction for criminal tax evasion conclusively establishes the defendant's civil liability for tax fraud for the same year." (Citations omitted.) In reaching the conclusion, the court analyzed the basis for his plea agreement and determined that it necessarily included as admission that certain income was taxable to him and that the admission was necessary to the conviction.
Mr. Anderson also argued that the IRS's concession in the Tax Court as to three years for which Mr. Anderson had not been convicted was necessarily a concession as to the two years for which he was convicted, arguing that the fact patterns were the same. The IRS's concession for the nonconviction years, however, was a strategic one because most of the income was in the years of conviction and thus having to mount the substantial burden of proving fraud and the tax involved for the nonconviction years was not justified. But, that concession was not a concession that the taxpayer had not committed fraud in those years.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Walter Anderson -- The Fight Continues (2/2/11)
The Walter Anderson saga continues with a decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit United States v. Anderson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1651 (D.C. Cir. 1/25/11). Those wanting some discussion of the saga might do a Google search; my quick search turned up thousands of items, including the following two: the Wikipedia entry here and the JusticeforWalt entry here. (Those wanting a less biased discussion might focus on the Wikipedia entry.) For present context, his case was one of the largest tax crimes case (in terms of tax loss) ever, and perhaps the largest individual tax crimes case. (Some of the marketed tax shelter criminal cases involved more tax loss because more taxpayers were involved.)
At any rate, the new decision arises from his prior conviction. The conviction was affirmed but remanded. United States v. Anderson,543 F.3d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In part here relevant, the earlier opinion permitted plea agreement restitution even though (i) the plea agreement cited the wrong Title 18 section, a phenomenon the Government urged and the court held was a scrivener’s error that did not vitiate the parties’ meeting of the minds to agree to restitution; and (ii) the plea agreement did not state an amount for restitution.
At any rate, the new decision arises from his prior conviction. The conviction was affirmed but remanded. United States v. Anderson,543 F.3d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2008). In part here relevant, the earlier opinion permitted plea agreement restitution even though (i) the plea agreement cited the wrong Title 18 section, a phenomenon the Government urged and the court held was a scrivener’s error that did not vitiate the parties’ meeting of the minds to agree to restitution; and (ii) the plea agreement did not state an amount for restitution.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Fascinating WaPo Story on the Birkenfeld Saga (5/16/10)
The May 16 edition of the Washington Post has a fascinating article on the Birkenfeld saga. David S. Hilzenrath, Swiss banker turned whistleblower ended up with a prison sentence. Birkenfeld strived to get the holy grail of whistleblower rewards under Code Section 7623 (statute here and IRS discussion here) and immunity from prosecution. That was a delicate dance, and he tried out several partners for the dance (DOJ Tax, SEC, IRS). Birkenfield stepped on some toes and ended up being prosecuted. It remains to be seen whether he will be rewarded. If so, the amount could be huge.
I have previously blogged various aspects of the Birkenfeld saga (see here for all posts), including being named Tax Analysts Person of the year (see here).
The takeaway from Birkenfeld's experience is that, if you are going to do this dance, you must come clean and not protect either your self or others (including clients).
Some good quotes from the article:
I have previously blogged various aspects of the Birkenfeld saga (see here for all posts), including being named Tax Analysts Person of the year (see here).
The takeaway from Birkenfeld's experience is that, if you are going to do this dance, you must come clean and not protect either your self or others (including clients).
Some good quotes from the article:
[Karen E.] Kelly [of DOJ Tax and Walter Anderson prosecution fame] also put Birkenfeld's lawyers on notice: The Justice Department was not part of the IRS whistleblower program, "and you should act accordingly."
* * * * *
[After giving DOJ Tax criminal attorneys some tantalizing information] Prosecutor Kevin M. Downing "looked at me and said, 'Oh, you watch too much TV. That's Hollywood,' " Birkenfeld recounted in an interview. Birkenfeld said he felt he was treated with "hostility and aggression."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)