Question

Janet Markleson ran a profitable used-car business until the business failed as a result

of an embezzling financial manager. The officers of the company were as follows: Janet was the president and treasurer, and her husband (now her ex-husband) was the secretary. All ownership equity in the business had been lost when the company’s financial manager cleaned out all the bank accounts, including one trust account whose balance was to be remitted to consignment customers. In all, the financial man- ager managed to run away with over $432,000 from those accounts. Rumors circulated that he had left the country.

The financial manager also cleaned out the company’s trust fund account that was being used to remit payroll taxes to the IRS and to state tax authorities. The loss in that account amounted to $74,221.54.

Janet hired a forensic accountant, whose final report clearly indicated the losses, although it only identified the financial manager as a suspect and not a guilty party. No guilty party was clearly identified in the report.

Janet’s husband, Mark Merkleson, never had had any involvement in the business. He worked as a salesman in a local department store, and after years of hard work he had managed to save up enough money to make a down payment on his first house, which he had planned to share with his new wife and raise a family.

Janet was bitter. Despite the forensic report the police wouldn’t seek an arrest warrant. She was told that even if they did prosecute, it would be impossible to get the suspect extradited from another country. She learned that extraditions can be expensive, and that local authorities didn’t have the budget to even pay the plane fare required to repatriate criminals in extradition proceedings. About a month after the business failed, Janet woke up one day to find that someone had filed a complaint with the state revenue office, saying that she had stolen the pay- roll trust fund due to the state. She heard from a friend that it was the financial man- ager who had filed the complaint.

She tried to tell the criminal investigators from the revenue department that the financial manager had stolen the money. She showed them the forensic accounting report, but they seemed unimpressed by it and advised her that she was a target of a criminal investigation.

A few months later things got much worse. Her ex-husband Mark called her, furious, and told her that the IRS had just frozen his bank account, one day before he was sup- posed to close on buying his first house. He was close to crying, because his real estate sales contract had a clause that required him to close on time or lose a $10,000 deposit he had used as part of the sales agreement. So he was going to lose both his deposit and dream house.

Required: Is there anything Janet can do to help her ex-husband? Why was his bank account frozen? Would it help if the financial manager were arrested?

Answer 1

In the above case it is clear that janet is the victim but the state revenue office will still want to collect the money . through janet is victim she is so clearly responsible for the business. If she has a crime policy she may be able to recoup some of the money but it may be hard to collect. Her ex husband bank account would have been frozen because he is partial owner of the business. even through he was not involved in day to day transactions the fact that he was part owner make him partially resonsible . AS was appointed out by vani murthy deligation of authority doesnot relieve a person of responsibility to collect and pay taxes of the IRS.