Skip to main content

Federal Court Bars Three Men from Promoting “Intermediary Transaction” Tax Shelter

WASHINGTON – A federal court has permanently barred Charles Klink, Caleb Grodsky and Steven Block from promoting abusive tax shelters known as “intermediary transactions” and “distressed asset trusts,” the Justice Department announced today.   The civil injunction orders, to which the three men consented without admitting to the allegations against them, were entered by Judge Joseph Irenas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.   The court orders require the defendants to give the government a list of all persons who participated in any tax plan or arrangement that they promoted since Jan. 1, 2000.
According to the government complaint , Klink and Grodsky, who are both attorneys in Southern California, and Block, who resides in Louisville, Ky., and has worked in the financial services industry for more than two decades, received millions of dollars from customers across the country for helping them dispose of corporate assets without paying federal corporate income taxes on the resulting capital gain income.   The complaint alleges that the three men used an intricate web of trusts and corporations to act as intermediaries between their customers, who owned closely held corporations, and buyers who wanted to purchase the corporations’ assets.
The complaint alleges that the defendants purchased all of the stock in a customer’s corporation shortly before or after the asset sale.   They then allegedly falsely told the customer that, following defendants’ purchase of the corporation, the defendants would restructure the corporation into a profitable new business and have it pay the corporation’s federal income taxes resulting from the asset sale.   However, according to the complaint, rather than pay the taxes owed after the asset sale, the defendants allegedly claimed deductions for sham fees and bogus bad debt write-offs generated from distressed-asset-trust tax shelters to offset most or all of the capital gains.   The defendants also allegedly took steps to siphon off the corporation’s assets, leaving it with no funds to pay any taxes due once the Internal Revenue Service learned of the scheme and assessed taxes.
The complaint against Klink, Grodsky and Block alleges that they have caused the corporations they acquired to deduct improperly more than $112 million of distressed consumer receivables.   The government estimates that the tax loss resulting from their promotion of the tax schemes at issue in this case exceeds $40 million.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more