Skip to main content

FEDERAL COURT SHUTS DOWN WASHINGTON STATE BOGUS "DECODING" TAX SCHEME"

WASHINGTON – A federal court has barred a Tacoma, Wash., woman from selling a tax scam, the Justice Department announced today. The civil injunction order, entered against Sharon Kukhahn, will remain in effect indefinitely.

Kukhahn operates businesses called IMF Decoder, Paralegal Research Advocates and Advocates for Justice, Liberty and Freedom. The Tacoma court found that Kukhahn’s IMF Decoder scheme falsely purported to "decode" Internal Revenue Service (IRS) computer transcripts of customers’ taxpayer accounts to show that the customers were not liable for federal income tax.

The case is one of three civil injunction complaints filed last month in federal courts on the east and west coats, seeking to halt tax-fraud schemes related to Pinnacle Quest International (PQI). A federal court in Florida enjoined PQI from promoting tax-fraud schemes earlier this month.

The court found that Kukhahn falsely represented to potential customers that they were not required to pay federal income taxes unless they live in a United States territory, and that United States residents may be taxed only by a federal excise tax and only if they are involved in an excise-taxable enterprise.

U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle held that Kukhahn knew or had reason to know that her decoding scheme was false. The court found that Kukhahn charges her customers between $1,750 and $3,195 for her decoding services. According to the court order, the IRS has determined that Kukhahn’s scheme caused revenue losses of approximately $4.9 million as a result of her customers’ failure to file tax returns and pay taxes. The court ordered Kukhahn to give the Justice Department a list of her customers.

"There is no magic way to make federal income taxes disappear," said Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division. "Those who pay for and implement frivolous scams like the one enjoined by the court here are wasting their money."

Since 2001, the Justice Department’s Tax Division has obtained injunctions against more than 340 tax fraud promoters and unscrupulous tax preparers. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department Web site.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...