Skip to main content

U.S. Judge Permanently Bars Suffolk County, N.Y., Tax Preparer from Doing Returns for Others

Allegedly Reported Excessive Deductions and Losses on Customers’ Returns; Causing a Loss to Date to the Treasury Exceeding $2.8 Million

WASHINGTON – A federal district judge in New York has permanently barred Howard Levine from preparing federal tax returns for others, the Justice Department announced today. The court also ordered Levine to provide his customer lists to the government and to mail copies of the court order to his customers.

According to the government complaint, Levine operated a tax return preparation service under the name Milaur Associates in Suffolk County, N.Y. The complaint states that Levine prepared an estimated 7,160 returns for the tax years 2003 through 2007. The Internal Revenue Service can not determine the exact number of returns that Levine prepared during this time period because he did not properly report his employer identification number on the returns that he prepared. Levine reported all Form 1099 income on a customer’s Schedule C, whether or not the customer had a business, and then reported excessive and unsupported expense deductions, thus resulting in a substantial loss to which the customer was not otherwise entitled. In addition, Levine, reported flow-through losses on customers’ Schedule E that were completely fabricated.

Based on its examination results to date, the government estimates that it has incurred losses in excess of $2.8 million.

"The Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service are working vigorously to shut down return preparers who prepare false or fraudulent returns for their customers, and catch those customers who actually filed false or fraudulent returns," said John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division.

In the past decade the Tax Division has obtained injunctions against more than 410 tax preparers and tax-fraud promoters. 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 ...