Is it tax fraud for an individual to declare non-taxable revenue as taxable income? (US tax laws) Hypothetically, A wants to pay B a considerable amount of money. In order to reduce the paper trail, A pays me the money and I transfer it to B. To further obscure the paper trail, I declare the payment from A as income for work (non-existent) done by me for A, enter it on my US Income Tax return as taxable income, and pay the resulting tax. I have submitted a false tax return, but it leads to an increase in tax paid. Is it still a crime? Edit: No money laundering. A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.
Money Laundering The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering. Note that money laundering includes: &quot;structuring financial transactions in order to evade reporting requirements.&quot; Unlike some other forms of money laundering, this does not require that the source of the funds be criminal, or that the actual transfer be criminal, so long as it is intended to avoid reporting requirements. Along the same lines is the even less obvious offense of smurfing. So, this does not cease to be money laundering because: &quot;A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.&quot; The transfer would typically have had to be reported on a Form W-2 (wage and salary income), a Form 1099 (most transfers that are usually taxable income), a Form 709 (gift tax return), a Form 1098 (mortgage interest), or 1040 Schedule A (deductible payments), or on a cash transaction form if conducted in that manner. The fact that you are reporting it as income, and that there would have been some disclosure requirement if paid to person B, implies that there is some reporting requirement that is avoided. Tax Crimes There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, for example, is defined as follows: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.f &quot;Conspiracy to defraud the government is a very broad concept.&quot; Tax Crimes Handbook at 132. Conspiracy to defraud the government is not limited to efforts to obtain money or property, but includes conspiracies where the object of the conspiracy is to obstruct, impair, interfere, impede or defeat the legitimate functioning of the government through fraudulent or dishonest means. Thus, conspiracy to defraud is not confined by reference to common law definitions of fraud. It is a separate crime to interfere with the lawful functions of the government without regard to the monetary consequences. Thus, § 371 involves both efforts to defraud the government of funds as well as interference with the lawful function of the government. The conspiracy to defraud prong of § 371 includes conspiracies to impede, impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful functions of the Treasury Department in the collection of income taxes. United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958). Arguments have been presented that § 371 was not intended to encompass conspiracies to violate the internal revenue laws or conspiracies to defraud the Service but these arguments have been rejected. Although decided in 1957, Klein is the leading case regarding conspiracies to impede and impair the Service and such conspiracies are commonly referred to as &quot;Klein conspiracies.&quot; In Klein the defendants were acquitted of the tax evasion charges but were convicted on the conspiracy count. The wording of the conspiracy count read, in part, as follows: &quot;... to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Department of the Treasury in the collection of the revenue; to wit, income taxes.&quot; In part, it was alleged in Klein that as &quot;part of said conspiracy that the defendants would conceal and continue to conceal the nature of their business activities and the source and nature of their income.&quot; The defendants concealed the source and nature of their income by altering and making false entries in their books, filing false income tax returns, and providing false answers to interrogatories. Thus, a money laundering plan may result in a conspiracy to obstruct the Treasury. United States v. Sanzo, 673 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 (1982). In Sanzo, one defendant argued that there was no direct evidence that the other party to the plan would not report the laundered money or claim deductions. The court felt there was enough circumstantial evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant knew his accomplice would not report large sums of laundered money as income and that he would have to falsify business records to hide the laundering activities. Sanzo, 673 F.2d at 69. Note, it is not necessary to prove that the Service was actually impeded in its efforts to assess and collect the revenue. Tax Crimes Handbook at 132-136 (in the pertinent parts, with most citations omitted). Caveat Regarding Legal Alternatives It is also worth noting that there are legal ways for person A to transfer money to person B without making it apparent, for example, in his check book or on his tax return that the funds were transferred to person B (exactly how is beyond the scope of this answer). Generally speaking, they are distinguishable because the IRS is fully and accurately informed of what is going on in a way that the IRS is not allowed to disclose publicly. But, the crude method used here does not achieve that end.
I know in general freelance work is not taxed Your “knowledge” is wrong. In general, all income is taxed. Some jurisdictions may exempt certain income derived from hobbies that are not businesses but this is by no means universal.
Is it legal for me to send a letter asking for compensation in return of not suing nor pressing charges? Yes, provided that by compensation you mean the equivalent (or close thereto) of what he stole. Your mention that the letter is on behalf of the company is crucial. Although definitions of extortion make reference to &quot;[acting] under color of office&quot;, U.S. v. Harris, 916 F.3d 948, 955-956 (2019) notes that states as well as Congress adopted an extended definition so as to include [extortion by] private individuals. One incurs extortion also when seeking to obtain more than is due. See, for instance Black's Law Dictionary (4th edition) just prior to the entry for &quot;Extortion&quot;. Thus, a surcharge on administrative grounds would be reasonable, but the company ought to ensure that the surcharge does not land it in the &quot;more than is due&quot; zone. The same applies in the event that stealing the property caused provable losses. See also conversion.
You cannot do this legally General rules Under US law you are required to file a Form 1099 with the IRS for this payment if it was for a trade or business purpose. ( $1,000.00 is above the current reporting limit of $600.) This you cannot do without the recipient's name (personal or business) and address. You will also need their SSN or TIN. Failure to file the 1099 may be a violation of law. Private people, as well as businesses, get 1099s which are also filed with the IRS. I myself have received 1099s as a private individual for freelance work. (Corporations mostly do not get 1099s.) Private individuals as well as businesses report payments on 1099s. Such a person might be involved in unlawful tax evasion, and the demand for payment in bitcoin might support a reasonable suspicion of this. If so, you might be accused of being an accessory. If the person is foreign (non-US) and the work was not done in the US it may not need to be reported, but if you do not know the person's location you cannot safely assert that it is outside the US. If you intend to deduct the payment on your own taxes as a business expense, you may also need to have a receipt showing the recipient of the money. It would seem that if the payor/client is in the US and the work was done for a trade or business (which includes a non-profit, but not a hobby or personal site) and the amount is $600 or more, there is no safe and legal way to hire a person or firm without knowing the name, address, and (in most cases) TIN (taxpayer identification number) of the contractor, or at least using ones &quot;best efforts&quot; to obtain the TIN. See the various IRS instructions below for details. IRS Instructions According to the Form 1099-Misc/1099-NEC insatructions Report on Form 1099-MISC [or 1099-NEC] only when payments are made in the course of your trade or business. Personal payments are not reportable. You are engaged in a trade or business if you operate for gain or profit. However, nonprofit organizations are considered to be engaged in a trade or business and are subject to these reporting requirements. Generally, payments to a corporation (including a limited liability company (LLC) that is treated as a C or S corporation) [are not reportable]. If you are required to file Form 1099-MISC, you must furnish a statement to the recipient. Enter [in Box 3] other income of $600 or more required to be reported on Form 1099-MISC that is not reportable in one of the other boxes on the form. File Form 1099-NEC, Nonemployee Compensation (NEC), for each person in the course of your business to whom you have paid the following during the year: At least $600 in ... Services performed by someone who is not your employee (including parts and materials) (box 1); Generally, you must report payments to independent contractors on Form 1099-NEC in box 1. If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report a payment as NEC. You made the payment to someone who is not your employee. You made the payment for services in the course of your trade or business (including government agencies and nonprofit organizations). You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or, in some cases, a corporation; You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year. Instructions for Form 1042-S specify that one must report for foreign payees: Compensation for independent personal services performed in the United States. General Instructions for Certain Information Returns says: Recipient names. Show the full name and address in the section provided on the information return. If payments have been made to more than one recipient or the account is in more than one name, show on the first name line the name of the recipient whose TIN is first shown on the return. ... TINs. TINs are used to associate and verify amounts you report to the IRS with corresponding amounts on tax returns. Therefore, it is important that you report correct names, social security numbers (SSNs), individual taxpayer identification numbers (ITINs), employer identification numbers (EINs), or adoption taxpayer identification numbers (ATINs) for recipients on the forms sent to the IRS.
Offices are normally rented by businesses, so for the tax appraiser, your situation would be quite out of the ordinary. They appear to be stone deaf to the idea that an office may be rented not for business purposes, and so they lump all office renters together. If they do not want to hear you, all you can do is to keep evidence that: You are an employee; You attempted to tell them that you are not liable for the tax because you are not a business — and present that should they ever attempt to prosecute you for tax evasion or similar. Specifically, do: Keep your employment contract, communication with your bosses telling you what to do and records of them paying your taxes; Send a formal letter (not an appeal) to the tax appraiser explaining the situation Should the issue ever be escalated, they will not be able to prove that you were a contractor/business (let alone beyond reasonable doubt), and you will be able to recover costs associated with this headache.
Imputed income is a legitimate concept, but it is hard to prove, particularly when there is an earning history to back up the claim that there is no malingering. Ultimately, the question is what that particular individual could earn and whether that particular individual was intentionally being lazy in order to influence child support. At a minimum an earnings history and testimony from Mary would be strong evidence disproving the claim, and it would probably take expert testimony to make any kind of credible claim that more income should be imputed that would still be unlikely to succeed. If more money were at stake, a battle of the experts with experts on each side with one testifying that Mary could earn more and the other debunking that expert's testimony, would be appropriate. But, for $300 a month at issue, it probably doesn't make economic sense for either party to hire any kind of expert. And, a judge is usually going to take some random statistical study much less seriously than a history of earnings and testimony from the franchise owner about why it earned more or less than average.
Fraud is fraud From what you say, the US company has had no revenue, no expenses, and no profit/loss. To say otherwise is what is colloquially known as a “lie”. A lie is also the term for it legally. To lie in order to receive a benefit like, say, a good credit rating, is called fraud. That’s illegal in the USA; I’m not familiar with Dutch law but I suspect it’s illegal there too.
Would capital gains taxes come into play given that the house is his daughters primary residence, but not his? Yes. He sold something that was his property, i.e., his [long term] asset. The fact that it was not his primary residence is irrelevant in this regard. The issue of primary vs. non-primary residence might be relevant only for purposes of computing the applicable credits and/or deductions, but that is very jurisdiction-specific.