Tag archives: 7206

The statute of limitations for crimes in violation of the income tax laws is generally six years. However, the taxpayer cannot rely upon the statute of limitations as a defense if the taxpayer's counsel is asserting the statute of limitations defense for the first time on appeal. The taxpayer must press the statute of limitations defense during the trial.

Court Denies Tax Preparer's Motions for Judgment of Acquittal and New Trial

Criminal No. 18-215 (MAS)

The Government Has Focused a Considerable Amount of Energy To Prosecute Taxpayers Who Failed to File FBAR Reports and Accurately Account For Taxes. The Government has used the Required Records Doctrine to compel taxpayers to produce foreign bank account records.

Taxpayers who are the target of an Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division investigation benefit from an understanding of the purpose of these investigations.

The statute of limitations for tax crimes may not begin to run on the later of the date the tax return was due or the date the return was filed. With regard to certain tax crimes, such as 7202, the date that the statute of limitation begins is the date that the taxpayer acted willfully. This will often be a question of fact that must be decided by the jury. As a result, a motion to dismiss based upon dates set forth in the indictment may be denied.

An Austell, Georgia, couple was sentenced to prison for their role in a stolen identity tax refund fraud scheme.

A Cranston, Rhode Island, resident pleaded guilty yesterday to aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, wire fraud, theft of government funds and aggravated identity theft.

CPA, John Miller, accused of various tax violations, was found not guilty on all counts by a jury following trial.

Defendants appealed their convictions on tax violations on several grounds including their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.

Taxpayer was convicted of tax evasion and filing a false tax return. The taxpayer appealed claiming that the indictment was duplicitous because it alleged the two types of tax violations. The taxpayer also argued that his lawyer provided effective assistance.