tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post6398137856550753003..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Walter Anderson -- The Fight Continues (2/2/11)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-23332074103755081472011-02-03T08:07:21.188-06:002011-02-03T08:07:21.188-06:00Thanks Jack, that helps.
Seems like a comedy of e...Thanks Jack, that helps.<br /><br />Seems like a comedy of errors from the government side! Tax Court personnel must have been shaking their heads.<br /><br />Many thanks again.Paddy Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-45819979877589368902011-02-02T15:52:10.614-06:002011-02-02T15:52:10.614-06:00Paddy C,
I am not sure why the IRS conceded 1995-...Paddy C,<br /><br />I am not sure why the IRS conceded 1995-1997 (but I do speculate below). By way of background from the various opinions written in the case, I gather the following:<br /><br />1. Anderson pled to two counts of evasion for the years 1998 and 1999. Earlier years had been involved in the dismissed counts.<br /><br />2. At sentencing, the Government introduced evidence of tax loss only of $140,587,613 for 1998 and 1999. It apparently did not attempt to sweep earlier years in under the relevant conduct provision of the Guidelines. <br /><br />3. There was a detour to the court of appeals over whether the sentencing court could impose restitution because of a snafu in drafting the plea agreement, but the court of appeals said that restitution could be imposed.<br /><br />4. Then, when it went back down for rehearing for restitution, the district court punted to the Tax Court to determine the restitution, as I noted in my blog. <br /><br />I speculate that, perhaps, the Government's decision not to try to prove loss for 1995-1997 in the criminal sentencing phase might have meant that it could not meet the rather more likely than not sentencing burden of proof. If that is the case, then in the Tax Court case the Government might have felt it could not prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence for the criminally dismissed years of 1995-1997. That is just speculation and don't know if that helps.Jack Townsendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-69182398217328411032011-02-02T15:13:37.655-06:002011-02-02T15:13:37.655-06:00This is interesting and I got a little too interes...This is interesting and I got a little too interested in it.... <br /><br />I have a question from the WIKI explanation: why did the messed up procedural point on the criminal end, affect the civil tax case so that the Tax Court threw out some years? Surely the civil case was separate and distinct?<br /><br />Thanks in anticipationPaddy Cnoreply@blogger.com