Question Number: 161

Question descriptionUsing 100 words or more, please respond to the following post:Nicole TompkinsDb4 7/24/17For the fraud case that I found, where an expect witness was involved, I found United States VS. Curtis L. Morris. Mr. Morris was an accountant accused in being a big role in a tax fraud scheme. Curtis Morris claimed missing tax withholdings by filling made-up form with tax returns. The IRS had to pay then refund since the tax withholdings were more than they allowed, they had to pay $2.2 million dollars in refunds. Mr. Morris had done this to twenty to twenty-five different people and then turned about and charged them with a percent of the refund. Morris was then charged with mail fraud, making false claims and conspiracy, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. The courts had called on a Kenneth Chafin who is an accounting expert witness. He was a certified accountant of people for over 30 years. He was one who had prepared Mr. Morris’s co-conspirators taxes for 20 years before he switched over to Mr. Morris. The co-conspirator had emailed Mr. Chafin on how to use a form called the 1099-OID to help him recover $1.6 million dollars from the IRS, he had begged Chafin to do the same, and said that the plan was indeed illegal and had criminal consequences. Mr. Chafin also stated that he had found nothing to back up the legality of the use of the Form 1099 in the IRS books. This is why the IRS paying the refunds did not mean it supposed the tax return was accurate. Chafin testified that a tax preparer who knowingly files a false return acts criminally. On the appeal, Mr. Morris had made numerous arguments, one of these arguments included Mr. Chafin’s testimony as an accounting expert witness without being disclosed or a qualified as one. He also inappropriately testified that Mr. Morris was guilty of fraud. With the lack of proper notice Mr. Morris first begins that Mr. Chafin was in fact sworn as a lay witness but as an professional accountant. Mr. Morris does not contest the admission of Mr. Chafin’s emails notice Armstrong that his use of Form 1099 was illegal, Then the panel stated that from their standpoint, the challenged testimony connected little more than did the emails did themselves. Furthermore, they thought that the opinions that Mr. Morris tests were based on Mr. Chafin’s first hand observations as Armstrong’s tax preparer of 20 years and not on his expert accounting knowledge. Concerning Mr. Morris’ disagreement that Mr. Chafin testified the ultimate issue, the courts said he didn’t testify as to Mr. Morris’s guilt, but that he simply testified that he thought it was illegal to falsify tax forms. The result, was that the court did not think that Mr. Chafin’s admission was in error but was harmless because of the evidence of how much guilt Mr. Morris had felt. Yes, I think that Mr. Chafin had credentials when it came to this case, because he was a professional accountant for many years before he came to help Mr. Morris with these illegal activities.References- https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/accounting-expert-witness-properly-allowed-tax-fraud-case-10th-circuit-concludes/