Comments Concerning Proposed Amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
March 27, 2001

Introduction | Contents | 20.1 | 20.2 | 12.B | 12.F | 12.G | 12.G.1 | 12.G.2 | 12.G.3

Proposed Amendment 12, Part G: 3 Issues for Comment

We request that the Commission consider these views on the first three of the five topics presented for comment in the Economic Crime Package. We have refrained from commenting on the remaining topics as they are not related to criminal tax cases.

Issue 1: The Alternative Methodology for Computing Tax Loss Where the Defendant’s Misconduct Affects Both Corporate and Individual Tax Liabilities.

In expressing our support for the Harvey methodology, it goes without saying that we view the Cseplo methodology to be the less attractive alternative. The Cseplo approach in situations where a defendant’s misconduct causes losses of both corporate income tax and individual income tax totals the two kinds of tax loss with no reduction for the tax attributable at the corporate level. While this alternative methodology may appear simpler, it is no more "simple" than the Harvey approach, and the drawback of overstating the tax loss is considerable. The proposed amendment based on the Harvey rationale is preferable for its greater accuracy, fairness, and comparable ease of application.

Introduction | Contents | 20.1 | 20.2 | 12.B | 12.F | 12.G | 12.G.1 | 12.G.2 | 12.G.3