Dennis March and Greg March, twin brothers from Berlin, Maryland, each pleaded guilty to tax evasion for concealing income and failing to pay business and individual taxes.

According to their guilty pleas, the brothers owned and controlled business entities and ventures including Elite Marketing Group LLC, Elite MG LLC, and Principal Law Group. The government said they concealed income by arranging payments to a shell entity they controlled, treating those payments as business expenses or costs when they were effectively distributions of income to themselves.

Jason explains how related-party payments can cross the line from planning to concealment, why business expenses need real substance, how IRS-CI follows entity and bank records, and what business owners should do before missing returns and disguised distributions become criminal tax evidence.

KeyTakeaways

• A shell entity does not make owner income disappear.
• Related-party payments need real services, real contracts, reasonable pricing, and clean tax reporting.
• A business expense must be ordinary and necessary, and the label does not override the economic reality.
• Large cash withdrawals, missing returns, and real estate purchases can help prosecutors tell the money-trail story.
• If prior filings are wrong, the cleanup should start before IRS-CI or the DOJ controls the timeline.
• Privilege matters when the facts involve concealed income, shell entities, missing returns, or potential willfulness. 

Resources Mentioned

DOJ case source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/maryland-brothers-plead-guilty-tax-evasion

IRS Publication 334, business expenses: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p334

IRS online payment agreements: https://www.irs.gov/paymentplans

The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com

Case Source

• 26 U.S.C. § 7201: Attempt to evade or defeat tax. The statute provides felony penalties for any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat tax or payment of tax.
• IRS Criminal Investigation Manual, IRM 9.1.3: Explains § 7201, including the requirement of an affirmative act and examples of conduct that may show an attempt to evade or defeat tax.
• Spiesv.UnitedStates, 317 U.S. 492 (1943): The Supreme Court distinguished passive failure to file or pay from felony evasion and identified examples of conduct that may show an attempt to evade or defeat tax.
• Cheekv.UnitedStates, 498 U.S. 192 (1991): The Supreme Court described willfulness in criminal tax cases as a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty.
• IRS Publication 334, business expenses: The IRS explains that a deductible business expense must be ordinary and necessary, with “ordinary” meaning common and accepted in the business field and “necessary” meaning helpful and appropriate.

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

Carl Mitchell of Crete, Illinois, known professionally as Twista, pleaded guilty on June 24, 2026, to five counts tied to willfully failing to pay income tax for 2019 through 2023. 

Court records and statements made in court indicate Mitchell earned income from performances, album sales, streaming, and royalties, and that both the IRS and Mitchell’s accountants repeatedly informed him of his tax debts and obligation to pay. Rather than paying the taxes owed, the government said Mitchell entered into third-party royalty advance agreements knowing the IRS could not levy those funds and made large lifestyle purchases, including at least four luxury vehicles.

Jason explains the line between civil tax debt and criminal exposure, how IRS-CI proves willful failure to pay, why accountant and IRS warnings matter, and what taxpayers with irregular income should do before the IRS problem becomes a DOJ problem.

Key Takeaways

• Tax debt is often a civil collection problem. Warnings, luxury spending, and collection avoidance can change the case. The IRS can follow creative income streams, including performances, streaming, royalties, licensing, and advances.
• Accountant warnings can become powerful willfulness evidence.
• Royalty advances and other financing tools can be legitimate, but the purpose matters when IRS collection is active.
•  Taxpayers with irregular income should set aside tax reserves and make estimated payments.
• If the facts include possible intent evidence, privilege should be structured before casual explanations are given. 

Resources Mentioned

• IRS-CI case source: https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/recording-artist-twista-pleads-guilty-to-tax-crimes
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

A federal jury convicted Marcia Predmore, Roderick Prescott, Suzanne Thompson, and Weldon Wulstein for their roles in an abusive layered trust tax shelter that DOJ says helped business owners evade federal income tax on up to 98 percent of business profits. 

The shelter used a business trust, family trust, charitable trust, and private family foundation, and was marketed with the phrase “own nothing, control everything.” 

Jason explains how abusive trust structures cross the line, why warnings from attorneys, CPAs, financial professionals, and IRS guidance matter in criminal tax cases, and what legitimate business owners should do instead when they need tax planning, asset protection, estate planning, or charitable giving advice. 

Key Takeaways 

• A trust is not a device for making taxable income disappear. 
• Asset protection and estate planning are legitimate goals, but they need real legal substance and clean tax reporting. 
• Personal expenses do not become deductible because they move through a trust. 
• Charitable deductions require real charitable transfers, substantiation, and loss of personal control. 
• Tax professionals should be cautious when a promoter asks them to prepare returns based on a packaged tax shelter. 
• If the plan depends on a slogan like “own nothing, control everything,” get independent tax counsel before signing or paying. 

Resources Mentioned 

• DOJ case source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-abusive-tax-shelter-promoters-found-guilty-40m-nationwide-tax-evasion-scheme 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

Vinh Q. Ho and Thanh Lan Do owned and managed a nationwide nail salon business operating under Anthony Vince Nail Salons, Prive Nail Spas, and Zen Nail & Spas. Prosecutors said the business paid a significant portion of nail technician compensation in cash, omitted that cash from year-end tax forms, trained salon managers to operate the under-the-table payroll, prepared false Forms 1099, and instructed employees to keep the true payroll hidden. 

In this episode, Jason explains how cash payroll becomes criminal tax exposure, why false information reporting is dangerous, how worker classification should be analyzed, and what a business owner should do before a payroll tax issue becomes an IRS-CI investigation. 

Key Takeaways

• Cash compensation still has to be reported.
• A Form 1099 does not make a worker an independent contractor if the actual relationship points the other way.
• False payroll forms can become evidence of concealment.
• Training managers to hide payroll turns a tax problem into a system problem.
• Payroll cleanup should start before IRS-CI is involved.
• Privilege matters when a business owner is trying to understand serious tax exposure.

Case Source 

• DOJ: Owners of Nationwide Nail Salon Business Plead Guilty to Tax Crimes 
• IRS-CI: Owners of nationwide nail salon business plead guilty to tax crimes 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

A trust can be a legitimate estate planning tool. In this case, prosecutors said purported trusts became the vehicle for a multimillion-dollar tax refund fraud scheme.

Brandon Hunt, his father David Hunt, his twin brother Baylon Hunt, and his half-brother Corey Burt were convicted at trial for their roles in a scheme to file false tax returns in the names of trusts they controlled. Prosecutors said the defendants sought more than $8.5 million in refunds, received over $1.7 million from the IRS, and used the proceeds to buy luxury goods, furniture, cryptocurrency, a Cadillac Escalade, and a house in Mississippi.

Jason explains why trusts do not create refunds by magic, how IRS warning letters can become a major aggravating fact, and what taxpayers should do when a trust, refund claim, or prior filing starts to look indefensible.

Key Takeaways

• A trust is a legal structure, not a refund generator.
• A refund claim must be supported by real income, real payments, real deductions, and real documentation.
• IRS warning letters should be treated as an escalation point, not background noise.
• Continuing after a warning letter can turn a bad filing position into a much more serious case.
• Tax professionals should slow down when a client presents a trust strategy that produces an unusually large refund.
• If prior returns are wrong, the correct path depends on willfulness, timing, and whether the IRS has already identified the issue.
• Voluntary disclosure may help address willful noncompliance only if the disclosure is truthful, timely, and complete, and made before key IRS enforcement triggers occur.

Case Source

• DOJ press release: Final Defendant Sentenced to Prison in Multimillion Dollar Tax Refund Fraud Scheme
• IRS-CI press release: Final defendant sentenced to prison in multimillion dollar tax refund fraud scheme

Resources Mentioned

• DOJ case source: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/final-defendant-sentenced-prison-multimillion-dollar-tax-refund-fraud-scheme
• IRS-CI case source: https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/final-defendant-sentenced-to-prison-in-multimillion-dollar-tax-refund-fraud-scheme
• IRS Form 1041: https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-1041
• IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice: https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/irs-criminal-investigation-voluntary-disclosure-practice
• Learn more: https://carrtaxlaw.com

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

John Kungu owned a successful business, Advanced Nursing Care, in Townsend, Delaware. He also owed the IRS nearly $1.2 million, and he decided to lie his way out of it. 

In this episode of Final Notice, tax attorney Jason Carr breaks down how Kungu ran his scheme on two fronts: filing false personal and corporate returns that disguised hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal spending as business expenses, then submitting multiple false sworn statements to the IRS during collections claiming he couldn't pay. 

The defining moment: Kungu offered to settle his entire tax debt for $35,000, said he'd need a loan to do it, and was holding more than $5.1 million in hidden accounts the whole time. He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison, three years of supervised release, a $75,000 fine, and full restitution of $1,186,573.62. 

Jason explains the legitimate tools Kungu ignored: the Offer in Compromise, installment agreements, currently-not-collectible status, penalty abatement, and real tax planning, and why every one of them starts with honest, fully disclosed financials. 

This episode is for business owners, taxpayers facing IRS collections, bookkeepers, enrolled agents, CPAs, and tax preparers who want to understand exactly where an unpaid tax bill turns into a criminal case. 

Key Takeaways 

• The IRS will settle a tax debt for less than you owe, but only through an Offer in Compromise built on fully disclosed, honest financials. 
• Lying on a sworn collection statement is what converts a civil collections problem into a federal criminal case. 
• Running personal spending through your business as "expenses" is not a deduction. It is evidence. 
• Hiding records from your own bookkeeper or tax preparer is the moment to call a tax attorney, not to dig deeper. 
• What you tell a tax attorney is privileged. What you tell your bookkeeper is not. 
• A large unpaid tax bill is a solvable problem. The solution is disclosure plus strategy, never a sworn lie. 

Resources Mentioned 

• DOJ / IRS-CI case source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-de/pr/delaware-business-owner-sentenced-18-months-federal-prison-multi-year-tax-evasion-scheme 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

Congress created the Employee Retention Credit to help struggling businesses keep workers on payroll during the pandemic. Candies Goode-McCoy of Las Vegas treated it like an ATM. 

From approximately June 2022 through September 2023, Goode-McCoy conspired with others to file more than 1,200 tax returns for her own businesses and for others, claiming the Employee Retention Credit and the paid sick and family leave credit, and seeking refunds totaling more than $98 million. The IRS paid out roughly $33 million before the scheme was stopped. Goode-McCoy personally received over $1.3 million in fraudulent refunds and about $800,000 more from clients, spending the proceeds on luxury cars, vacations, and gambling. 

She pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims and was sentenced to 54 months in prison, three years of supervised release, and more than $26 million in restitution to the IRS. 

Jason explains why refundable credits like the ERC draw intense IRS scrutiny, how high-volume claims create unmistakable data patterns, and what a business should do if it already claimed an ERC it can no longer defend, including the ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program, claim withdrawal, amended returns, audit defense, and penalty relief. 

This episode is for taxpayers, small business owners, tax preparers, bookkeepers, enrolled agents, CPAs, and anyone trying to understand where an aggressive credit claim crosses the line into criminal tax fraud. 

Key Takeaways

• A refundable credit is the most heavily scrutinized money in the tax code. A refund that sounds too good to be true usually is. 
• The ERC was a legitimate program with specific eligibility rules: a government-ordered shutdown or a significant decline in gross receipts in qualifying periods. 
• High-volume claims with repeated credits create detectable patterns. The IRS shifted most of its exam staff to audit ERC claims. 
• Lifestyle that doesn't match reported income is a classic red flag investigators follow every time. 
• Tax preparers should build practices on eligibility analysis, documentation, and defensible positions, not refund size. 
• If you already claimed a credit you can't support, voluntary correction through the ERC Voluntary Disclosure Program or claim withdrawal is far better than waiting for the IRS to find it. 
• The goal is to keep the matter in the civil tax resolution lane, through amended returns, audit defense, and penalty relief, before it becomes a criminal case. 

Resources Mentioned 

• DOJ sentencing release: Business Owner Sentenced to Over Four Years in Prison for $100M COVID-19 Tax Credit Scheme 
• DOJ District of Nevada release: Business Owner Sentenced to Over Four Years in Prison for $100M COVID-19 Tax Credit Scheme 
• DOJ guilty plea release: Nevada Woman Pleads Guilty to Fraudulently Seeking Nearly $100M in COVID-19 Employment Tax Credits 
• Related co-conspirator (IRS-CI): Nevada businesswoman pleads guilty to multimillion dollar scheme to fraudulently claim COVID-19 tax credits 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

Dr. Pankaj Merchia controlled several sleep medicine companies and, on paper, looked like a Harvard-educated success story. Federal prosecutors said he was running a shell game. 

From 2017 to 2019, Merchia billed insurers millions for sleep apnea machines former patients hadn't used in years, some of which had already been returned, and used the proceeds to buy a $2.1 million home. He billed an insurer over $390,000 for treating his own brother, and when told he couldn't, set up a new business under a nominee to keep the payments flowing. 

The tax scheme used the same playbook. From 2009 to 2019, Merchia hid more than $6.5 million in income by claiming his businesses were owned by a co-conspirator, fabricating a 2008 "sale" backed by a $30 million appraisal, and claiming roughly $2 million in deductions a year for fifteen years. When the IRS audited, he produced a backdated promissory note the metadata exposed and claimed he earned just $1 a year, "much like the founders of Google and AOL." 

After a ten-day trial in which he represented himself, a Boston jury deliberated about four hours and convicted him on all counts. Jason explains where legitimate succession planning, Section 197 amortization, entity structuring, and the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice could have solved Merchia's real problems, and why lying during an audit, not the audit itself, is what turns an IRS case into a DOJ case. 

This episode is for physicians, business owners, CPAs, enrolled agents, and tax professionals who want to understand exactly where aggressive planning crosses into criminal tax fraud. 

Key Takeaways

• You cannot just put a "stand-in" or nominee owner on a business to avoid taxes while keeping total control. The IRS focuses on who actually signs the checks, runs the show, and spends the money (like paying personal credit cards and student loans directly from business accounts).
• A messy or aggressive audit is usually a civil issue settled with back taxes, penalties, and interest. What turns an audit into a federal criminal indictment is lying, inventing stories (like the "Google founder" defense), and feeding fabricated documents to investigators.
• Modern tax fraud is easily exposed by digital fingerprints. Backdating a promissory note or a sales agreement to make a transaction look old will fail because file metadata reveals exactly when the document was actually created.
• If you are exposed during an audit, the goal is containment, not doubling down on the lie. Utilizing the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Practice or filing amended returns can keep a case civil. Fabricating new documents completely destroys that option.
• Strategies like asset protection, income shifting, and Section 197 amortization deductions are perfectly legal. However, they require real ownership transfers, actual transactions, and verifiable records—not manufactured forms with zero substance.
• Self-representation in a federal fraud trial rarely ends well. Taxpayers facing serious audits need to bring in defense counsel early to protect themselves with attorney-client privilege and let an objective expert make the cold strategic calls.

Resources Mentioned

• IRS-CI press release: Former Brookline doctor convicted of health care fraud and tax fraud 
• DOJ press release: Doctor Convicted at Trial for Defrauding IRS and Health Care Insurers 
• DOJ (District of Massachusetts): Former Brookline Doctor Convicted of Health Care Fraud and Tax Fraud 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

Harry Lamar Curtis III owned Information Advisory Group LLC, a cybersecurity and IT company based in Houston. He was also a former certified public accountant. 

According to the Department of Justice, Curtis was required to withhold and pay over employment taxes from employee paychecks, including federal income taxes, FICA taxes, and employer matching amounts. As part of his plea, Curtis admitted that he failed to file business tax returns for Information Advisory Group since 2016 and improperly withheld $1,647,142 that was due to the IRS. He also admitted he had not filed individual tax returns for himself since 2008. 

In this episode of Final Notice, Jason explains why payroll tax cases are different, why withheld taxes are not business operating cash, and what business owners should do if payroll tax problems begin to stack up. 

The episode covers payroll tax compliance, unfiled business returns, unfiled personal returns, trust fund exposure, IRS-CI referral risk, civil tax resolution options, and why attorney-client privilege matters when payroll tax facts become serious. 

Key Takeaways 

• Payroll taxes are not business cash. When a business withholds taxes from employee wages, that money must be paid over to the government. 
• File the returns even if the business cannot pay in full. Unfiled returns make collection and resolution harder. 
• Payroll tax debt needs immediate triage. The business must become current on new deposits before old debt can be addressed effectively. 
• Trust fund payroll taxes can create personal exposure for responsible persons, including owners and decision-makers. 
• A civil resolution plan may include compliance cleanup, installment agreements, penalty abatement, payroll controls, restructuring, or winding down the business. 
• Privilege matters when payroll tax issues involve years of non-filing, withheld taxes, missing deposits, or potential false statements. 

Resources Mentioned 

• DOJ case source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/houston-business-owner-sent-prison-failing-pay-over-16-million-taxes 
• IRS-CI plea source: https://www.irs.gov/compliance/criminal-investigation/houston-business-owner-admits-to-failing-to-pay-over-1-point-6-million-in-taxes 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.

David Gebhardt was a Tennessee-licensed attorney from Brentwood. According to DOJ, he bought cryptocurrency, used decentralized exchanges and nominees to conceal income, and failed to report millions of dollars in income from cryptocurrency sales and his consulting business. 

From March 2018 through December 2022, DOJ says Gebhardt withdrew approximately $6.6 million from cryptocurrency sales. Despite being warned by his accountants to report all cryptocurrency income, he failed to do so, and on his 2020 through 2022 returns he indicated that he did not engage in virtual currency transactions when he had. 

Jason explains why the digital asset question on Form 1040 matters, how crypto records can become evidence, and why “I didn’t receive a tax form” is not a defense to failing to report income. The episode also covers the better path: transaction reconstruction, Form 8949, Schedule D, amended returns, payment planning, penalty strategy, and keeping serious tax problems in the civil IRS lane whenever possible. 

This episode is for taxpayers, business owners, crypto investors, attorneys, accountants, enrolled agents, CPAs, and anyone who has digital asset activity that has not been properly reported. 

Key Takeaways 

• The IRS digital asset question must be answered accurately. Taxpayers must answer “Yes” or “No” to whether they received, sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of a digital asset during the year. 
• Digital asset income must be reported on the federal tax return. 
• Sales, exchanges, and other dispositions of digital assets held as capital assets generally belong on Form 8949, with totals summarized on Schedule D. 
• Ordinary income from digital assets, including forks, staking, and mining, generally belongs on Schedule 1. 
• Taxpayers must report digital asset income, gains, or losses whether they receive Form 1099-DA or not. 
• When accountants warn a taxpayer to report income, that warning can become a major fact if the taxpayer later files false returns. 
• A prior filing problem is usually easier to fix before IRS-CI is involved. 

Resources Mentioned 

• DOJ case source: https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdtn/pr/brentwood-attorney-pleads-guilty-tax-fraud 
• IRS digital assets page: https://www.irs.gov/filing/digital-assets 
• IRS digital asset reporting reminder: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/reminders-for-taxpayers-about-digital-assets 
• The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC: https://carrtaxlaw.com 

Disclaimer 

This video is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal or tax advice. Viewing this video does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Office of Jason Carr, PLLC. The discussion is based on publicly available information and is not a complete analysis of any person’s legal rights, defenses, tax obligations, or case facts. Any commentary about what a taxpayer, business owner, or advisor “should have done” is general educational discussion only and may not apply to your situation. If you have a specific legal or tax question, consult a qualified attorney or tax professional licensed in your jurisdiction.

Comment Policy

Please do not post confidential, sensitive, or personally identifiable tax information in the comments. We do not provide individualized legal or tax advice in the comments or social media replies.