Home Page link  

Tax consequences of embezzlement and subsequent refund

 

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated)

 Post an article  get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Tax consequences of embezzlement and subsequent refund NadCixelsyd 09-07-2008
Posted by NadCixelsyd on September 7, 2008, 6:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options


A neighbor was just indicted for embezzlement. Here are the facts
assumed from newspaper articles:
2004: embezzle $145,000 but does not declare it on the tax return
2005: embezzle another $245,000, but does not declare it on his tax
return.

August, 2008: He is arrested for embezzlement. The entire $390,000
is refunded in an effort to mitigate the criminal charges.

The IRS has been notified. OK, he "under reported" his income in 2004
and 2005, but what happens (tax wise) in 2008 when his total income is
only $130,000?

And just out of curiosity, what would happen if he HAD declared the
embezzlement on his 2004 & 2005 tax return?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Phil Marti on September 7, 2008, 7:17 pm
Please log in for more thread options


"NadCixelsyd" wrote:

>A neighbor was just indicted for embezzlement. Here are the facts
> assumed from newspaper articles:

Rarely a safe assumption, but...

> 2004: embezzle $145,000 but does not declare it on the tax return
> 2005: embezzle another $245,000, but does not declare it on his tax
> return.
>
> August, 2008: He is arrested for embezzlement. The entire $390,000
> is refunded in an effort to mitigate the criminal charges.
>
> The IRS has been notified. OK, he "under reported" his income in 2004
> and 2005, but what happens (tax wise) in 2008 when his total income is
> only $130,000?

Assuming he's a cash-basis taxpayer (almost every individual is) he filed
false returns for 2004 and 2005. IRS will be chatting with him about this
from the civil side. (I'm assuming he has a good enough lawyer that the
criminal aspects of the 2004 and 2005 returns are already being dealt with.)

He may be able to generate a deduction or credit for the year of repayment.
See IRS Publication 525.

> And just out of curiosity, what would happen if he HAD declared the
> embezzlement on his 2004 & 2005 tax return?

Well, he wouldn't have any IRS problems on top of his other legal problems.
He'd probably also make the cover of Time magazine as the only person on
record to do so. Come to think of it, he probably should anyway since he
hadn't yet frittered away the money and had it to repay the victim when he
got caught.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by D. Stussy on September 7, 2008, 10:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options


> "NadCixelsyd" wrote:
> >A neighbor was just indicted for embezzlement. Here are the facts
> > assumed from newspaper articles:
>
> Rarely a safe assumption, but...
>
> > 2004: embezzle $145,000 but does not declare it on the tax return
> > 2005: embezzle another $245,000, but does not declare it on his tax
> > return.
> >
> > August, 2008: He is arrested for embezzlement. The entire $390,000
> > is refunded in an effort to mitigate the criminal charges.
> >
> > The IRS has been notified. OK, he "under reported" his income in 2004
> > and 2005, but what happens (tax wise) in 2008 when his total income is
> > only $130,000?
>
> Assuming he's a cash-basis taxpayer (almost every individual is) he filed
> false returns for 2004 and 2005. IRS will be chatting with him about this
> from the civil side. (I'm assuming he has a good enough lawyer that the
> criminal aspects of the 2004 and 2005 returns are already being dealt
with.)
>
> He may be able to generate a deduction or credit for the year of
repayment.
> See IRS Publication 525.

In this case, he's NOT entitled to a claim-of-right deduction because he's
being CRIMINALLY prosecuted. The courts have generally ruled that an
embezzler can use the CoR method only when civilly sued by the victim
without prosecution. (I did this research in the early 1990's when I still
worked at the IRS and was auditing an embezzler).

Authority: IRC 162(f). Repayment in a criminal case is often part of the
fine or penalty.

> > And just out of curiosity, what would happen if he HAD declared the
> > embezzlement on his 2004 & 2005 tax return?
>
> Well, he wouldn't have any IRS problems on top of his other legal
problems.
> He'd probably also make the cover of Time magazine as the only person on
> record to do so. Come to think of it, he probably should anyway since he
> hadn't yet frittered away the money and had it to repay the victim when he
> got caught.

I concur. No tax due as it's already paid.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Phil Marti on September 8, 2008, 12:18 am
Please log in for more thread options


"D. Stussy" wrote:

> In this case, he's NOT entitled to a claim-of-right deduction because he's
> being CRIMINALLY prosecuted. The courts have generally ruled that an
> embezzler can use the CoR method only when civilly sued by the victim
> without prosecution. (I did this research in the early 1990's when I
> still
> worked at the IRS and was auditing an embezzler).

I suspected that might be the case, which is why I hedged and said "may" be
eligible in the original response. Thanks.

It was so much easier when they finally got to Collection. If there was
anything left after Vegas or wild women, the lawyers already had it.
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Posted by Condor on September 8, 2008, 1:49 am
Please log in for more thread options


> In this case, he's NOT entitled to a claim-of-right deduction because he's
> being CRIMINALLY prosecuted. The courts have generally ruled that an
> embezzler can use the CoR method only when civilly sued by the victim
> without prosecution. (I did this research in the early 1990's when I
> still
> worked at the IRS and was auditing an embezzler).

My favorite court case dealing with this issue is Yerkie v. Commissioner,
circa 1976. I wanted to refer the original poster to the Yerkie case but
couldn't find a public Internet link to it.


Condor

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

Similar ThreadsPosted
OIC approved; subsequent bump in income. April 27, 2008, 10:52 pm
stock gift from employer and subsequent sale April 4, 2007, 2:39 pm
Tax Consequences of Foreclosure April 2, 2008, 1:12 am
IRA to Roth IRA tax consequences October 20, 2008, 9:53 pm
Tax consequences of family loan? September 20, 2007, 10:46 pm
Stock merger tax consequences November 28, 2007, 12:37 pm
Citizenship via Grandparents - Tax Consequences March 19, 2008, 1:18 pm
Re: Citizenship via Grandparents - Tax Consequences March 19, 2008, 4:56 pm
Gift Tax Consequences for 529 Accounts November 20, 2008, 2:56 pm
interest debt forgiveness tax consequences November 8, 2006, 2:44 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy
This site is not affiliated with Intuit - makers of Quickbooks and Quicken software
This site is not affiliated with Sage Software - makers of Peachtree accounting software
XML SitemapXML Sitemap