Originally Posted by codisimo
More like enough water to end a drought in Africa.
More like enough water to end a drought in Africa.
Parts 3 and 6 alone of the indictment do not form a good picture ...
If Mitch has the case then there is a good chance that HK Parts, while making some mistakes, will get out from under this.
May the best man win.
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
Given that its an S corporation instead of an LLC or partnership, ownership of HK Parts can be transferred quickly in the event the owner goes to the big house-which looks pretty likely at this point. Even if he's cleared of the NFA charges, the tax fraud charges can still sink him. Even Al Capone couldn't beat that rap.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
And sad to say, from reading that indictment - something is fishy with those tax returns.
2007 1040 Sch C- $23,185.00
2008 1040 Sch C - $22,039.00
2009 1040 Sch C - $682.00 (Wow 2008 recession hit him HARD, how did he not go bankrupt?)
2009 S Corp - $49,742
2010 1040 Sch C - $2,638.00 + $652.00
2010 S Corp - $87,749
___
I'm not tax expert, but on first pass things aren't adding up. It looks like he is reporting one set of numbers on the 1040 and one set on the S Corp form, that I'm guessing are for the two different businesses he was (is) running. Which really makes you go..."Wait so one business barely makes a profit and the other makes 90k a year?!" Something isn't right here. Were most assets transferred to the S Corp? Is that why the sudden drop in profit for the business filed under 1040? Something odd is definitely going on.
-Rob
Where is the discrepancy? It looks like he transferred most of the assets to the S Corp, but still retained some as a sole proprietor, so he reported them on the 1040. Also, the indictment doesn't even allege that the discrepancy between the individual and corporate tax forms is a problem, only that gross receipts are underreported everywhere. I'd also note that the indictment contains almost no facts supporting the allegations. This is especially true as the the "engaging in the business" and export violation counts.
Two questions need to be settled on that subject.
One:what was the agreement he signed in 2007 with the government stating he would not pursue an FFL or transact business related to firearms? If he signed a plea deal on pre-2007 charges which specified a lifetime ban from the gun business, it would explain why he'd play games with his tax returns: fearing honest reporting of his income would lead to being shut down, he decides to bury the profits to hide his re-entry into a business he committed to leaving.
Two; given that he's the only shareholder of the S corporation according to the indictment, he'd still have to report the profits from the corporation . The fact that its an S corporation omits some of the onerous regulations , but he'd still have an obligation to account for his profits truthfully.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
Right, but they have presented no evidence that he "engaged in the business" of dealing in firearms. It's a term of art. There are specific elements they need to prove, and there are no facts in the indictment showing that he sold firearms for livelihood and profit.
Yes, he would have to report the profits as income, but that isn't what they alleged that he failed to do. They're only claiming that he underreported his gross receipts.
Update: Webber convicted.
http://www.recoilweb.com/adam-webber...ted-96831.html
Hopefully, he transferred ownership of HK Parts and its remaining assets to a responsible 3rd party before his trial began.
It seemed pretty clear they had a solid case against him for filing false tax returns. The dealing with firearms without a license conviction is troubling. Some people just can't keep their noses clean...
Reply With Quote