How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Dimitry K., Esq. Your Own Question
Dimitry K., Esq.
Dimitry K., Esq., Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 1611
Experience:  Run my own successful business/contract law practice.
18572087
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Dimitry K., Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

This is a Internal Revenue Administrative Procedure

Customer Question

This is a Internal Revenue Administrative Procedure Question. Please start research in the 11th Circuit.Does the Internal Revenue Service have to investigate alleged violations of the Tax Code?Start with Internal Revenue Manual 9.1.3. I need a statute and a court case which says the IRS must investigate alleged violations of the Tax Code.
Submitted: 4 months ago.
Category: Business Law
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
This deals with Federal Tax code
Expert:  P. Simmons replied 4 months ago.

Thanks for the chance to help. I am an attorney with over 12 years experience. Hopefully I can help you with your legal question.

Customer: replied 4 months ago.
Good to have you on board. Good luck
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
Use this information to find a case where an IRS agent was prosecuted:9.1.3.3.2.2.2 (05-15-2008)
26 USC §7201 – Attempt to Evade or Defeat Any Tax or Payment Thereof
1. The substance of the offense under 26 USC §7201 is the term "attempt in any manner" . The statute does not define attempt, nor does it limit or define the means or methods by which the attempt to evade or defeat any tax may be accomplished.
2. Courts have held, however, that the term "attempt" implies some affirmative act or the commission of some overt act. This affirmative act need not be the filing of a false or fraudulent return, although most cases in this area do involve the filing of such a return. Courts have also held that a false statement made to Treasury agents for the purpose of concealing unreported income is an attempt to evade or defeat a tax.
3. The willful omission of a duty or the willful failure to perform a duty imposed by statute does not per se constitute an attempt to evade or defeat a tax. However, a willful omission or failure (such as a willful failure to make and file a return) when coupled with affirmative acts or conduct from which an attempt may be inferred would constitute an attempt. The Supreme Court in Spies v. United States provided examples of conduct that may imply "the attempt to evade or defeat any tax" , such as:
1. keeping a double set of books
2. making false entries, alterations, invoices, or documents
3. destroying books or records
4. concealing assets or covering up sources of income
5. handling one's affairs to avoid making records usual in transactions of the kind
6. any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal
4. The term "attempt" does not mean that one whose efforts are unsuccessful cannot be convicted under 26 USC §7201. The crime is complete when the attempt is made and nothing is added to its criminality by success or consummation, as would be the case with respect to attempted murder. It has been held that attempts cover both successful and unsuccessful endeavors or efforts. As the courts have stated, the real character of the offense lies, not in the failure to file a return or in the filing of a false return, but rather in the attempt to evade any tax.
5. It is well settled that a separate offense may be committed with respect to each year. Therefore, an attempt for one year is a separate offense from an attempt for a different year.
6. There may also be more than one violation in one year resulting from the same acts, such as the willful attempt to evade the payment of tax and the willful attempt to evade tax. Likewise, there may be a willful attempt to evade tax and a willful failure to file a return for the same year.
7. The mere failure or willful failure to pay a tax does not constitute an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of that tax. The above discussion of the need for an affirmative action or the commission of some overt act applies equally to this offense. Examples of actions that might constitute the attempted evasion of the payment of tax include:
1. concealing assets
2. reporting income through others
3. misappropriating, converting, and diverting corporate assets
4. filing late returns
5. failing to withhold taxes as required by law
6. filing false declarations of estimated taxes
7. filing false tentative corporate returns
8. Courts have held that disbursement of available funds to creditors other than the government, or to corporate stockholders is not in itself an attempt to evade or defeat the payment of taxes.
9.1.3.3.2.2.3 (05-15-2008)
26 USC §7201 – Willfulness
1. To satisfy the third element of 26 USC §7201, the attempt to evade or defeat a tax or the payment thereof must be willful. Willfulness is defined as the voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. Mere understatement of income and the filing of an incorrect return does not in itself constitute a willful attempt to evade tax. Absent an admission or confession, willfulness is rarely subject to direct proof and generally must be inferred from the facts and circumstances. Willfulness may be inferred from any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or conceal, such as that exemplified in Spies.
2. This definition of willfulness applies to all Title 26 offenses where willfulness is an element, unless stated otherwise.26 U.S. Code § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
§ 7201.
Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Customer: replied 4 months ago.
Additional information:
United States of America, Appellee, v. Merlyn Dykstra, Appellant, 991 F.2d 450 (8th Cir. 1993)
As this court noted in United States v. Williams, 644 F.2d 696, 699 n. 11 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 841,***** 150, 70 L. Ed. 2d 124 (1981), " [t]he language and structure of § 7212 track part of certain federal obstruction of justice statutes, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 and 1505 (1976)." In interpreting § 7212(a), courts have often resorted to the obstruction of justice provision of Title 18. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1278 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Popkin, supra, 943 F.2d at 1539-40); United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995,(###) ###-####(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 834,***** 107, 88 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1985).
Similar to 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), a person is guilty of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1503 if he, inter alia, "corruptly, or by threats or force ... influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." Section 1505 contains similar language prohibiting corrupt endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any federal department or agency. A violation of the omnibus clause of § 7212(a) is substantially the same as a violation of these portions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 or 1505. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying section 2J1.2 as the most appropriate sentencing guideline.