Former Tax Court Judge Pleads Guilty to Criminal Tax Fraud
This past April, I wrote about a federal indictment returned against Diane L. Kroupa, a former judge on the United States Tax Court, and her husband, Robert E. Fackler. The indictment charged Ms. Kroupa and Mr. Fackler with leaving off income from their tax returns and improperly claiming that certain nondeductible personal expenditures were really deductible business expenses.
In addition, the indictment accused the couple of various misdeeds during IRS audits of their tax returns, including concealing records and documents and feeding their tax preparer with false information for him to pass on to the IRS auditor. The Indictment accused Ms. Kroupa and Mr. Fackler of six counts each, consisting of charges such as conspiracy, tax evasion, making a false tax return, and obstruction of an IRS audit.
On September 23rd Mr. Fackler entered a plea of guilty to Count 6 of the Indictment, obstruction of an IRS audit. In his plea agreement, Mr. Fackler stated that there came a time when he and Ms. Kroupa needed to pay taxes but didn’t have enough money to do so.
According to the plea agreement, Ms. Kroupa told Mr. Fackler that this lack of funds was “his problem” and that he needed to find as many tax deductions as possible. Mr. Fackler understood this to mean that he should deduct personal expenses as business expenses on Schedule C of their tax return. (Schedule C is the form upon which Mr. Fackler reported income and expenses pertaining to his lobbying business.) Mr. Fackler’s plea agreement portrays Ms. Kroupa as an active participant in the process by which personal expenditures were falsely claimed to be business deductions.
The plea agreement also sets forth various other acts of wrongdoing by Mr. Fackler and Ms. Kroupa in connection with the couple’s reporting of their income and expenses and in connection with the IRS audit of their tax returns. The charge to which Mr. Fackler pled guilty carries a maximum prison term of 3 years.
The plea agreement anticipates that the advisory sentencing guidelines range for Mr. Fackler will be 24 to 30 months imprisonment, based on a total tax loss of more than $450,000 over a seven-year period. The plea agreement permits Mr. Fackler to ask for a sentence below that range and the Government to ask for a sentence above that range. The sentencing date has not yet been set.
This past Friday, October 21st, Ms. Kroupa entered her own plea of guilty. She pled guilty to Count I, Conspiracy, a charge with a maximum prison sentence of 5 years. Ms. Kroupa’s plea agreement anticipates an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 30 to 37 months. The higher range for Ms. Kroupa, compared to that of Mr. Fackler, stems from the guidelines’ taking into account Ms. Kroupa’s “abuse of a position of trust,” namely, her position as a judge on the United States Tax Court, which causes an increase in the calculation of her offense level under the guidelines.
As is the case for Mr. Fackler, under Ms. Kroupa’s plea agreement, either side can ask for a sentence above or below the advisory sentencing guidelines range. A sentencing date for Ms. Kroupa has not yet been set.
According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mr. Fackler and Ms. Kroupa are in the midst of divorce proceedings, which began two months following the return of the indictment. Apparently the couple that commits tax fraud together doesn’t always stay together.
About The Author
Sandy Boxerman, Chair of the White Collar Criminal Defense and Internal Investigations practice group, defends individuals and corporations in white collar investigations and prosecutions. He also represents taxpayers in civil and criminal tax matters.
For more information about Sandy, visit his profile.
The content on this post does not constitute legal advice, may be geographically or time sensitive, and is for informational purposes only. Any opinions expressed in this post are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. You should not act upon the information presented herein without seeking the advice of legal counsel. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Past results afford no guarantee of future results. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merits.