- 5 -
week later. On August 10, Agent Johnson contacted Durand to set
up an appointment. During their conversation, Durand made
certain statements that Agent Johnson took as seeking a complete
concession; thereafter the agent decided "to proceed on with
[his] investigation" without ever meeting face to face with
either Durand or petitioner. The agent’s final report (the
report), in which he recommended prosecuting petitioner for tax
evasion under section 7201, was based primarily on statements
made by petitioner's hostile and estranged husband, as well as
information supplied by people other than petitioner, to
establish her intent in failing to report the embezzled funds.
Despite the report, petitioner was not prosecuted under
section 7201 for tax evasion. On March 12, 1991, she was
indicted, instead, for the lesser offense of willfully filing a
false tax return for 1984 (count one) and 1985 (count two) in
violation of section 7206(1). Petitioner entered into a
negotiated plea (plea) in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia, wherein she pleaded guilty to
count one of the indictment. Count two was dismissed.
Petitioner was sentenced to 5 years’ probation, 200 hours of
community service, and was ordered to pay $16,552, plus interest
and penalties, in restitution. This amount appears to represent
the 1984 deficiency plus then-accrued interest.4 Petitioner has
4 Although the parties stipulated (without any explanation)
that the restitution was based on the deficiencies for the two
years in issue, we do not see how this is mathematically
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011