We are looking to hear from others that have been there. We need all the support we can get.

My husband of almost 25 years believes in his innocence. He is a CPA, self employed, 22 years, NEVER a problem. NEVER a fine. Nothing, nada.

He was visited by the IRS and FBI in 2006 and 2007 regarding some clients. They were satisfied with his answers and took files. (He has no copies - remember, he says he did nothing wrong).

Earlier this year, he was called to the US Attorney's Office to work with them on the case.
After being bombarded with questions, my husband felt they were after him. (He does tend to feel overwhelmed often-just his character). We hired an attorney; he is a target.

The ex-client, in question, finally pled guilty and obviously, implicated my husband. My husband only did his tax returns for 2 years and they parted ways after that.

This group of clients all live well, nice homes, cars, etc. Some of them have made settlements with their regulatory agencies. (That's how the Feds got involved).

We, on the other hand, have lived in an average home for 14 years, elderly parents to support, 2 children (college) and so forth. Obviously, we have limited resources. We have an attorney but our resources won't last forever.

We want to fight this - we're looking at 150K to do that. Anyone have experience with this? He wants to be vindicated.

Until he is actually charged with something, I'm not sure I could offer any real advise.

What does your attorney have to say about it?

Possible charge:
Conspiracy to defraud the IRS

The attorney sees a possible indictment.

We just can't understand why they after someone so small potatoes.

The IRS will go after those individuals that they feel confident they can collect money from.

Could be all these fat cats, have corps set up to hide assets, and would be difficult to get anything from, so they include your small potato's husband, who may be the easiest to actually get something from.

Hopefully, you have a good attorney, familiar with tax issues, and the IRS.

We have very little asset-wise. They probably have already checked that out.

The other character is having to pay some money but has (2) million dollar homes.

He was seen around town recently looking to acquire office space. Sounds like he thinks he is getting no sentence. (originally 50 counts) - most not dealing with taxes

Because they are looking to make someone an example to anyone else who may even be considering defrauding the IRS.

What are they claiming your husband did to defraud the IRS? Is the other person alleging some sort of tax evasion scheme?

I don't understand why the IRS would take the word of someone who apparently has already been convicted of tax fraud - what is the evidence (if you know)?

I realize that IRS is looking for the path of least resistance but if you don't have much they can take I don't know why they are bothering - other than proving a point and teaching other a lesson.

We cannot understand why they would take the word of someone else who has other counts and past settlements with regulatory agencies. He CLAIMS he overstated expenses in his plea deal. This is what he gave my husband!

We are just devastated. This other person has assets and still has stuff left.

It's not too hard to see we don't have much.

Hello bmill:

The IRS cops don't care How MUCH you have. They care about how MUCH time they can make you serve. Do they care that they're going to bankrupt you? No.

excon

Going before a grand jury?

Good? Bad?

Attorneys say not to but if you're innocent, why not?

That's why you have an Attorney - and presumably he/she knows more about this case than the people on this board.

This is probably the reason: "Prosecutors may be required in state grand jury proceedings to present, on behalf of the suspect, information that they feel is exculpatory (so strong that it could create a REASONABLE DOUBT that the suspect committed the crime); however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal prosecutors are not required to do so in federal grand jury proceedings (United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 [1992]). In arguing that a suspect should be charged, prosecutors may make arguments and use information that would normally not be admissible during a trial. Witnesses who are called before a grand jury are not allowed to have an attorney present when they testify. This holds true for a witness who may be a suspect. A final concern is that grand juries meet in secret, and a formal record of federal grand jury proceedings is not usually provided to the suspect even after indictment."

He was asked to testify before the grand jury; then we got an attorney; attorneys all said NO, don't do that, then it seemed everything changed for him (my husband).

We are just back reliving events, what brought this on. We are such average, boring people, just work all the time, very boring lives.