Law Office of Michael B. Cohen Home
Former Prosecutor Contact Us now For a Free Consultation
Weston Man Convicted of Numerous Counts of Tax Fraud
On Jan. 21, 2014 a Weston, FL man was convicted of four counts of filing false claims for tax refunds and one count of corruptly impeding the due administration of the internal revenue laws. The results of the indictment were jointly announced by the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Justice
A Fort Lauderdale, Florida federal grand jury handed down an indictment charging Paul F. Wrubleski with all charges listed above, in early December of last year. The indictment alleged that Wrubleski filed false tax returns including four of them that had asked for federal refunds totaling more than one and one half million dollars. He was additionally accused of impeding the Internal Revenue Service, claiming his exemption from withholding of taxes through the filing of bogus W-4 forms stating that as his status.
Additionally, the indictment listed that Wrubleski sent false documents as well as obstructive letters to the IRS during a more than ten year period between the years of 1999 and 2010. The indictment also purported that in 2006 he filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to hamper collection attempts by the Agency.
An example of these "obstructive letters" came in a petition to the tax court for review of the IRS Appeals Office's assessment supporting a suggested imposition of a levy to collect unpaid tax liabilities on Wrubleski's property for the three- year tax period of 1998 through 2000. He disputed the court's endorsement to dismiss his petition for review for failure to prosecute by the Commissioner's motion.
Prior to filing the petition for assessment, he stated his income tax due on tax returns that were filed for the three-year period of 1998, through 2000 as zero. However, it was found that his actual tax liabilities for the stated three-year period were just under the total of fifty thousand dollars. Upon the findings of these discrepancies he was notified by the Commissioner of the deficiencies for these tax years by certified mail.
In response or the lack thereof, a petition for review was not filed by Wrubleski for this asserted claim within the allowable 90-day period. This required the Commissioner to assess the amount in question. He then mailed a demand and notice for payment. Additionally, after the assessed amounts failed to be paid, a final notice was mailed, advising him of the IRS's intention to levy his property. In that correspondence he was also instructed of his right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing which he did request by return mail.
During the CDP hearing, Wrubleski maintained that he was not accountable for any income taxes because his earnings were not assessable as revenue, no tax had been calculated against him, and the Commissioner did not have the right to levy his property or to assess income taxes. It should be kept in mind that all correspondences were transmitted by mail.
After receiving Wrubleski's latest letter, the Office of Appeals sent him a reply directing him that, due to the fact that his points of view were frivolous, there was no right to an in-person conference. Along with their reply, the Appeals Office also sent copies of his accounts for the three-year tax period. In his written reply, Wrubleski again raised numerous constitutional questions that challenged the Commissioner's common authority.
In February 2004, the Appeals Office issued a notice of determination, supporting the proposed levy. It was explained that he was disqualified from further challenges in reference to either the amount of his tax liability or the virtue of the amount, for the tax years in question, primarily because he acknowledged that notices of the deficiencies had been received by him, and he had failed to request the tax court for reconsideration on a timely basis. It was also clarified in the letter that the deficiency assessments were valid and due as verified by an officer, and that relevant laws and organizational processes had been charted. The letter also pointed out that Wrubleski had not offered an effective alternative for collection, or an adequate, less invasive manner of collecting the amount due.
The conclusion of the Appeals Office was that the suggested levy secured "the need for the efficient collection of taxes and his legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary."
Continuing correspondences continued from March of 2004 through December 6, 2004, when the trial of Wrubleski's case was called by the tax court. Wrubleski was given prior written warning that the "failure to appear may result in dismissal of the case and entry of decision against you" (him).
The court scheduled the case for both morning and the afternoon. Each time, Wrubleski failed to appear. Finally, the Commissioner moved to dismiss his petition for failure to prosecute, due to no issues existing of which the Commissioner held a responsibility for demonstrating a burden of proof as well as Wrubleski's non-appearance while cognizant of the trial date.
The court then summarily settled the motion of the Commissioner and ordered Wrubleski's property to be levied.
The criminal case against Wrubleski was investigated by special agents of the IRS – Criminal Investigation. He was committed to custody immediately following the conviction.
Sentencing is scheduled for April 3, 2014. His conviction is covered under a statutory maximum possible sentence of twenty three years in prison. He also is looking at a potential fine of up to 1.2 million dollars.
A Fort Lauderdale, Florida federal grand jury handed down an indictment charging Paul F. Wrubleski with all charges listed above, in early December of last year. The indictment alleged that Wrubleski filed false tax returns including four of them that had asked for federal refunds totaling more than one and one half million dollars. He was additionally accused of impeding the Internal Revenue Service, claiming his exemption from withholding of taxes through the filing of bogus W-4 forms stating that as his status.
Additionally, the indictment listed that Wrubleski sent false documents as well as obstructive letters to the IRS during a more than ten year period between the years of 1999 and 2010. The indictment also purported that in 2006 he filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to hamper collection attempts by the Agency.
An example of these "obstructive letters" came in a petition to the tax court for review of the IRS Appeals Office's assessment supporting a suggested imposition of a levy to collect unpaid tax liabilities on Wrubleski's property for the three- year tax period of 1998 through 2000. He disputed the court's endorsement to dismiss his petition for review for failure to prosecute by the Commissioner's motion.
Prior to filing the petition for assessment, he stated his income tax due on tax returns that were filed for the three-year period of 1998, through 2000 as zero. However, it was found that his actual tax liabilities for the stated three-year period were just under the total of fifty thousand dollars. Upon the findings of these discrepancies he was notified by the Commissioner of the deficiencies for these tax years by certified mail.
In response or the lack thereof, a petition for review was not filed by Wrubleski for this asserted claim within the allowable 90-day period. This required the Commissioner to assess the amount in question. He then mailed a demand and notice for payment. Additionally, after the assessed amounts failed to be paid, a final notice was mailed, advising him of the IRS's intention to levy his property. In that correspondence he was also instructed of his right to a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing which he did request by return mail.
During the CDP hearing, Wrubleski maintained that he was not accountable for any income taxes because his earnings were not assessable as revenue, no tax had been calculated against him, and the Commissioner did not have the right to levy his property or to assess income taxes. It should be kept in mind that all correspondences were transmitted by mail.
After receiving Wrubleski's latest letter, the Office of Appeals sent him a reply directing him that, due to the fact that his points of view were frivolous, there was no right to an in-person conference. Along with their reply, the Appeals Office also sent copies of his accounts for the three-year tax period. In his written reply, Wrubleski again raised numerous constitutional questions that challenged the Commissioner's common authority.
In February 2004, the Appeals Office issued a notice of determination, supporting the proposed levy. It was explained that he was disqualified from further challenges in reference to either the amount of his tax liability or the virtue of the amount, for the tax years in question, primarily because he acknowledged that notices of the deficiencies had been received by him, and he had failed to request the tax court for reconsideration on a timely basis. It was also clarified in the letter that the deficiency assessments were valid and due as verified by an officer, and that relevant laws and organizational processes had been charted. The letter also pointed out that Wrubleski had not offered an effective alternative for collection, or an adequate, less invasive manner of collecting the amount due.
The conclusion of the Appeals Office was that the suggested levy secured "the need for the efficient collection of taxes and his legitimate concern that any collection action be no more intrusive than necessary."
Continuing correspondences continued from March of 2004 through December 6, 2004, when the trial of Wrubleski's case was called by the tax court. Wrubleski was given prior written warning that the "failure to appear may result in dismissal of the case and entry of decision against you" (him).
The court scheduled the case for both morning and the afternoon. Each time, Wrubleski failed to appear. Finally, the Commissioner moved to dismiss his petition for failure to prosecute, due to no issues existing of which the Commissioner held a responsibility for demonstrating a burden of proof as well as Wrubleski's non-appearance while cognizant of the trial date.
The court then summarily settled the motion of the Commissioner and ordered Wrubleski's property to be levied.
The criminal case against Wrubleski was investigated by special agents of the IRS – Criminal Investigation. He was committed to custody immediately following the conviction.
Sentencing is scheduled for April 3, 2014. His conviction is covered under a statutory maximum possible sentence of twenty three years in prison. He also is looking at a potential fine of up to 1.2 million dollars.
