Sharon D. Kukahn aka Sharon Stephenson of Tacoma WA

[Joey Smith]

U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 12, 2010

LONG TIME ABUSIVE TRUST PROMOTER INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY, INCOME TAX EVASION AND INTERFERING WITH INCOME TAX LAWS
Former Partner of Convicted Income Tax Fraudster Indicted for Continuing Scheme

SHARON D. KUKHAHN, a/k/a Sharon Stephenson, 61, of Tacoma, Washington was arrested today on an indictment returned by the grand jury in the Western District of Washington, charging her with Conspiracy, four counts of Tax Evasion and Corrupt Interference with Internal Revenue Laws. KUKHAHN will make her initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Tacoma today at 2:30.

According to the indictment, KUKHAHN promoted the same type of abusive trust scheme that in 2006, sent her partner, David Carroll Stephenson, 54, to prison for eight years. Stephenson was convicted following a two week trial and ordered to pay $8.5 million in restitution. The indictment of KUKHAHN details steps she took from 1999 to 2005, as part of a conspiracy to promote an abusive trust scheme designed to hide individual taxpayers’ income and assets from the IRS. The indictment alleges that, in total, the conspirators sold trust packages to more than 400 individuals. Purchases used the trust packages to conceal income and assets from the IRS, and, as a result, failed to pay in excess of $7,000,000, in income taxes. The indictment alleges that through her own use of the trust packages, KUKHAHN evaded paying income taxes in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Finally the indictment alleges that KUKHAHN engaged in a business that attempted to thwart the efforts of the IRS to collect taxes owed by advising clients that they did not owe taxes. KUKHAHN provided a false interpretation of tax laws, and provided a frivolous letter writing service for clients designed to thwart IRS efforts to collect taxes owed. KUKHAHN sold this scheme to more than 1,400 clients, thereby assisting them to cheat the U.S. out of more than $4 million in income taxes.

If convicted KUKHAHN faces up to five years in prison for each count of tax evasion and for the conspiracy count. KUKAHAN faces up to three years in prison for Corrupt Interference with Internal Revenue Laws. Each count carries a $250,000 fine.

The charges contained in the indictment are only allegations. A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

The case is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).

The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Arlen Storm and U.S. Department of Justice Trial Attorney Mike Romano.



For additional information please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney’s Office, at (206) 553-4110 or Emily.Langlie@USDOJ.Gov <mailto:Emily.Langlie@USDOJ.Gov.> .

[.]

failed to pay in excess of $7,000,000 in income taxes

Ouch. Tax loss of 7+ mill is level 26. Tack on 2 for failure to report 10K+ income and 2 for sophisticated means and level 30 is 97-121 months. If she's convicted, she'll be unavailable for hot dates until she's about 70 years old.

[wserra]

She had previously been enjoined, as we comment on here.

[Harvester]

Well the $10k reporting rule does not apply here as she wasn't engaged in "trade or business."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

[The Operative]

Well the $10k reporting rule does not apply here as she wasn't engaged in "trade or business."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

Harvester provides another example of his lack of reading comprehension skills.

[Harvester]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 21,00.html

Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or business must file a Form 8300.

I trust this isn't new information for you?

[bmielke]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 21,00.html

Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or business must file a Form 8300.

I trust this isn't new information for you?

For most normal people that means if you get 10 G's you report it on form 8300.

It is not a trade or a business, it is trade as in commerece, as in you have something you sell for 10G you report it to IRS. If you sell a bunch of stuff for a total of 10G most people would report it to be on the safe side, at least I would, I am not clear if it goes by transaction or by deposit, but as I have never seen $10,000 at one time in my life I have no idea what all the rules are, if the bank told me to fill out a form I would.

[Famspear]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 21,00.html

Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or business must file a Form 8300.

I trust this isn't new information for you?

Harvester, I think you're misunderstanding. They're not talking about failure to file Form 8300 under section 6050I of the Internal Revenue Code. They're talking about failure to report over $10,000 as income on a federal income tax return. That's two different things.

[The Operative]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 21,00.html

Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or business must file a Form 8300.

I trust this isn't new information for you?

Of course it isn't new to me. My comment was directed at your obvious misinterpretation of the definition of a trade or business in section 7701. Kukahn sold her services under several business names and was obviously engaged in a trade or business. Also, her trade or business fits the definition of such under section 7701. You are just another idiot that does not understand the meaning and usage of the word "includes".

[Famspear]

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/art ... 21,00.html

Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 while conducting their trade or business must file a Form 8300.

I trust this isn't new information for you?

Of course it isn't new to me. My comment was directed at your obvious misinterpretation of the definition of a trade or business in section 7701. Kukahn sold her services under several business names and was obviously engaged in a trade or business. Also, her trade or business fits the definition of such under section 7701. You are just another idiot that does not understand the meaning and usage of the word "includes".

I thought Harvester's misunderstanding was due to his mis-reading of the comment by "." regarding what I assume is a reference to the Federal sentencing guidelines, where the "defendant failed to report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal activity".

[The Operative]

I thought Harvester's misunderstanding was due to his mis-reading of the comment by "." regarding what I assume is a reference to the Federal sentencing guidelines, where the "defendant failed to report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal activity".

Well, that too. He linked to section 7701, said the $10k rule didn't apply to Kukahn because she wasn't in a trade or business, and then emphasized "trade or business" in the IRS article on Form 8300. So, he first misread the comment and then misreads section 7701. Both are evidence of his lack of reading comprehension.

[Famspear]

I thought Harvester's misunderstanding was due to his mis-reading of the comment by "." regarding what I assume is a reference to the Federal sentencing guidelines, where the "defendant failed to report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal activity".

Well, that too. He linked to section 7701, said the $10k rule didn't apply to Kukahn because she wasn't in a trade or business, and then emphasized "trade or business" in the IRS article on Form 8300. So, he first misread the comment and then misreads section 7701. Both are evidence of his lack of reading comprehension.

Agreed.

Well, it proves at least that Harvester is too stupid or lazy to scroll down to subsection c of the very statute he linked to:

(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

And Harvester probably has the same problem understanding the phrase "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" as Peter Hendrickson does.

[.]

the $10k reporting rule does not apply here as she wasn't engaged in "trade or business."

Hey, genius, the words "failure to report 10K+ income" refer to an income tax return, not currency reporting. You might want to familiarize yourself with federal sentencing guidelines, their direct application to you could be in your delusional future.

Here ya go:
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/tabcon09_1.htm

Specifically:
http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/2t1_1.htm

§2T1.1. Tax Evasion; Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax; Fraudulent or False Returns, Statements, or Other Documents
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) Level from §2T4.1 (Tax Table) corresponding to the tax loss; or
(2) 6, if there is no tax loss.

(b)Specific Offense Characteristics
(1) If the defendant failed to report or to correctly identify the source of income exceeding $10,000 in any year from criminal activity, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 12, increase to level 12.
(2) If the offense involved sophisticated means, increase by 2 levels. If the resulting offense level is less than level 12, increase to level 12.

Have fun.

[LPC]

Well the $10k reporting rule does not apply here as she wasn't engaged in "trade or business."

Who said anything about a "$10k reporting rule," you freaking moron.

[Harvester]

Oh! my mistake. Thought "." was referring to the Form 8300 reporting rule.
That's one of great things about Quatloos, whenever someone errs, you all jump in to correct. Thank you all for your help on "sentencing guidelines" - that's funny - like a criminal's gonna report his criminal activity!

[Famspear]

Oh! my mistake. Thought "." was referring to the Form 8300 reporting rule.
That's one of great things about Quatloos, whenever someone errs, you all jump in to correct. Thank you all for your help on "sentencing guidelines" - that's funny - like a criminal's gonna report his criminal activity!

Well, in terms of illegal income, some criminals do report, on federal income tax returns, both the nature and amount of the illegal income. A certain Mr. Garner once did that, and his case ended up at the United States Supreme Court. Generally speaking, you are required to report the AMOUNT of illegal income (for example, gains on illegal sales of controlled substances), but you can claim the Fifth Amendment on the DESCRIPTION of the income (by literally writing "FIFTH AMENDMENT" on the line next to the amount).

[.]

You "thought?"

Actually, you ignorantly took a giant leap to an incorrect conclusion based on an irrelevancy because it suited your desired outcome. Sounds a lot like CtC.

Here's a clue. Don't spout TP gibberish to a group of attorneys (most of whom are not tax attorneys) and tax professionals, not to mention many non-attorneys (like me) who have nothing to do with taxes other than paying them.

Why? Because we, unlike you, are capable of understanding the meaning of plain and even not-so-plain English and don't allow our preferences to dictate conclusions about tax law. That means that your adherence to nonsense will be intellectually drawn and quartered, as your idiocy has been over the entirety of your 87 pitiful posts, the slicing and dicing of your abjectly lame and irrational BS all having been done with great specificity, although probably without effect on you or your delusions.

At least it's been faintly amusing, Van Pelt's nonsense was getting a bit stale.

[LOBO]

that's funny - like a criminal's gonna report his criminal activity!

That's just one criminal act on top of another. After all, it was tax evasion that did Al Capone in. And no, it wasn't because his racketeering had a "federal priviledge."

[LOBO]

but you can claim the Fifth Amendment on the DESCRIPTION of the income (by literally writing "FIFTH AMENDMENT" on the line next to the amount).

Or "pharmaceutical distribution"

[LPC]

that's funny - like a criminal's gonna report his criminal activity!

Well, in terms of illegal income, some criminals do report, on federal income tax returns, both the nature and amount of the illegal income.

I don't know about "nature," but the *amount* of illegal income is often reported. The government might not be able to see how they got the money, but it's going to see them spend it, and if they don't have a good story for how they got the money, there's going to be more scrutiny than they want.

And that's the reason that organized crime operations so often invest in legitimate businesses that receive a lot of currency, such as restaurants and (best of all) legal casinos. If you own a restaurant and report $100,000 in cash receipts, the IRS really has no good way of knowing how much of the cash came from the restaurant operations and how much came from illegal drug sales. By taking cash illegally obtained and putting it into a legal business, they can effectively launder the cash and convert it from inexplicable income into explicable (and reported) income.