Tax Attorney in New York City Reduced Charge Tax Fraud

The client agreed to serve as the listed officer of a distribution company after being approached by an acquaintance. The entity appeared to operate as a wholesale supplier, yet it had no warehouse, employees, or actual inventory. The client was told that administrative matters would be handled by others and that involvement would be minimal.

Over a period of approximately twelve months, the company issued and received invoices totaling several million dollars. These invoices did not reflect genuine transfers of goods. Investigators later determined that third parties used the documentation to claim improper tax benefits.

The investigation resulted in allegations under New York Tax Law § 1801, which defines criminal tax fraud. Authorities also alleged violations of New York Penal Law § 175.10, which addresses falsifying business records in the first degree. Prosecutors asserted that the issuance of false invoices demonstrated intent to evade tax obligations.

A tax attorney in New York City must carefully examine whether the prosecution can establish knowledge and willful intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Intent is a required element under both statutes.

The client did not possess formal accounting training and relied on assurances from other individuals involved in the business. The client believed that tax compliance was being managed by experienced parties. There was no evidence that the client drafted the invoice structure or calculated tax benefits.

Under New York Tax Law § 1801, criminal liability requires willful conduct. Mere carelessness or poor judgment does not satisfy the statutory threshold for felony conviction. A tax attorney in New York City can argue that the required mens rea element is not supported by admissible proof.

During the early phase of the investigation, the client provided incomplete information after being reassured by a third party. Once the seriousness of the matter became clear, the client corrected prior statements and fully cooperated with investigators.

New York courts frequently consider cooperation during charging decisions and plea negotiations. A tax attorney in New York City may present evidence that the client assisted authorities and disclosed the relevant financial records voluntarily.

Evidence demonstrated that the client received only modest administrative payments rather than a substantial share of alleged tax savings. Prosecutors could not establish that the client personally controlled the broader scheme or directed the improper deductions.

Under New York Penal Law § 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree requires intent to commit or conceal another crime. The defense emphasized that the client did not design or orchestrate the underlying tax structure.

The client voluntarily paid a portion of assessed liabilities and entered into a structured repayment agreement. Restitution is often considered a strong mitigating factor in criminal tax cases.

A tax attorney in New York City may use restitution efforts to negotiate charge reductions and to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility.

The prosecution permitted a plea to a reduced misdemeanor offense under New York Penal Law § 175.05, falsifying business records in the second degree. The felony tax fraud allegation under New York Tax Law § 1801 was not pursued.

The court imposed a monetary fine and required continued restitution payments. No term of incarceration was ordered. The court cited limited personal benefit, lack of prior criminal history, and cooperation during the investigation.

False invoicing schemes can expose individuals to significant felony liability in New York. A tax attorney in New York City can analyze statutory intent requirements, identify evidentiary weaknesses, and pursue negotiated outcomes when appropriate.

Criminal tax investigations require early strategic intervention. Careful evaluation of knowledge, intent, and financial benefit may significantly influence the final disposition. Similar cases may be resolved through reduced charges and monetary penalties when mitigation and cooperation are clearly demonstrated.