Why should a taxpayer use the services of a forensic accountant when being audited or under criminal investigation? Tracy Coenen talks about the expertise a forensic accountant can bring to the case, specifically in evaluating the methods used by the IRS for determining income.
White collar government investigations almost always have one thing in common: They rely heavily on an analysis of financial information. This often includes going through banking documents with a fine tooth comb, and can also involve scrutinizing accounting records.
While the task of accumulating this data and examining it seems basic, there is much work involved, and expertise in financial and accounting crimes is necessary to fully understand the issues and the potential criminal or civil charges that the government brings against the company or individual. To properly defend such a case, it is necessary to have a financial investigator involved to help filter the data and the issues the government will raise.
Tracy Coenen talks on CNBC about the top five tax scams that consumers should be aware of.
Income tax audits are intimidating whether you are being audited personally or as a business owner. There is a right way and a wrong way to handle an audit by a state or federal taxing authority. It is easy to dig a hole for yourself, but awfully hard to get out of that hole.
Whether you attempt to handle an audit on your own, or opt to involve a professional who is experienced in these matters, there are some things you should know as you embark on your journey. I don’t ever suggest that a taxpayer submit to an audit alone. It is very helpful to have an experienced professional along for the ride. Not only can the accountant or attorney help you complete records requests, she or he can also act as a buffer between the taxpayer and the IRS.
The process of an audit is often one big negotiation. It is a give and take between both sides. Ultimately, both sides want the case closed, and the faster we can get to that point, the better. (Preferably with the least amount of pain for everyone involved.)
You are being audited.
These are some of the most dreaded words an individual or business will ever hear from a state or federal tax auditor. They invoke fear, panic, and sometimes anger.
Most of all, they create a need for documentation. Every number could be scrutinized. That means documentation must be produced to support the amount of each expense and the business purpose of the item.
Some of us are meticulous in our documentation, but if you are like most taxpayers, you have pockets of misplaced or destroyed data. Even worse, you may be in a situation where documentation was completely destroyed by a fire or flood. If you don’t have documentation, does that mean your deductions are automatically disallowed? Not necessarily.
There are four widely recognized methods of calculating income in family law cases. These four methods have been developed for use by the Internal Revenue Service in calculating unreported income in tax cases, and are the primary ways a lifestyle analysis can be completed.
Specific Items Method
One of the most straightforward ways to complete a lifestyle analysis is through an analysis of specific items of income. This method is possible when there are substantial documents detailing cash inflows, and is considered a “direct method” of verifying income.
Income-related information is gathered from bank and brokerage statements, tax-related documents, and business records. Inflows are identified and summed, theoretically verifying the income disclosed in the family law case. This method is easy to understand and present, which makes it an attractive option for evaluating claimed income. The court will easily be able to understand how income was calculated.
Former KPMG audit Partner Scott I. London brought great shame to the accounting profession this week by being charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud through insider trading. After nearly 30 years with KPMG, London went down in flames after being caught passing insider information on audit clients of the Los Angeles office to his “friend,” Bryan Shaw.
Proving once again that there is no honor among thieves, Shaw got caught first, and then sold out his friend Scott to the Feds. He helped them get a gorgeous trail of evidence, including phone calls and photographs of the crime. Both are now charged with insider trading.
In 2008, former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was charged in state court with 8 felonies related to perjury, misconduct in office, and obstruction of justice. In On September 2008,he pleaded guilty to two felonies for obstruction of justice and was sentenced to four months in the Wayne County Jail and ordered to pay $1 million of restitution to the city of Detroit.
The fun didn’t stop there. Kilpatrick has been accused of hiding money that could be used to pay $855,000 restitution owed to the city of Detroit, stemming from the conviction. Despite claiming poverty and an inability to pay the restitution he owes, money has been magically appearing! Money was transferred to his wife, and Kwame himself received $4,000 from a mystery source. None of these funds were disclosed to the state by Kilpatrick, despite being required to do so under the conditions of his probation. It is suspected that Kilpatrick has money hidden, and that is the source of the funds.
If you’re a family law attorney practicing in Wisconsin, you might want to consider attending a State Bar of Wisconsin CLE seminar being presented by Gregg Herman and Al Dassow on January 11, 2013. They’re talking about Tax and Tax Fraud Issues in Family Law.
Gregg Herman has been practicing family law since I was a little kid (he’s going to hate me for saying that), and I’m fortunate to run into him in my office building from time to time. He has blogs on family law issues, and I urge you to take a peek at his blog and put it into your RSS reader so you can keep up with it. He has been blogging faithfully for the better part of a year (no small feat!) and I am looking forward to reading more.
Today Brian Willingham of the Diligentia Group has inspired me with his article Do Former Law Enforcement Officers Make Better Private Investigators? While Brian agrees that experience in law enforcement can be helpful to a private investigator, it does not necessarily make that investigator better. The same can be said for forensic accountants and fraud investigators: Law enforcement experience can be helpful, but it is not as important as you might believe.
Brian points us to a video that suggests that: