1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

NITHYA SENRA, CA SBN 291803

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044

Telephone: (202) 307-6570

Facsimile: (202) 307-0054

E-mail: nithya.senra@usdoj.gov

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Of Counsel

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Alfred George Decker, an individual, and 

Accountable Business Services, Inc.,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT 

INJUNCTION AND OTHER RELIEF

Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, 

complains and alleges as follows:

1. This is a civil action brought by the United States of America under 26 

U.S.C. §§ 7402(a) and 7407 to permanently enjoin Alfred George Decker (“Mr. Decker”)

and Accountable Business Services, Inc. (“ABS”), and anyone in active concert or 

participation with them, from:

a. acting as a federal tax return preparer or requesting, 

assisting in, or directing the preparation or filing of federal 

tax returns, amended returns, or other related documents 

or forms for any person or entity other than themselves;

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 23
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. Preparing or assisting in preparing federal tax returns that 

they know or reasonably should know would result in an 

understatement of tax liability or the overstatement of 

federal tax refund(s) as penalized by 26 U.S.C. § 6694;

c. Owning, operating, managing, working in, investing in, 

providing capital or loans to, consulting with, or 

franchising a tax return preparation business;

d. Maintaining, assigning, holding, using, or obtaining a 

Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) or an 

Electronic Filing Identification Number (EFIN);

e. Engaging in any other activity subject to penalty under 26 

U.S.C. §§ 6694, 6695, or any other penalty provision in 

the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(A)); 

and

f. Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct 

which substantially interferes with the proper 

administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue 

laws (26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(D)).

AUTHORIZATION

2. This action has been authorized, and requested by, the Chief Counsel of the 

Internal Revenue Service, a delegate of the Secretary of Treasury, and is brought at the 

direction of a delegate of the Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to 26 

U.S.C. §§ 7402 and 7407.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 

and 1345 and 26 U.S.C. § § 7402(a).

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7407(a) and 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Mr. Decker resides in Maricopa County, defendant 

Accountable Business Services maintained its principal place of business in Gilbert, 

Arizona, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action 

occurred in the district.

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 2 of 23
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DEFENDANTS

5. Defendant Alfred George Decker resides in Maricopa County, Arizona.

6. Defendant Accountable Business Services, Inc. (“ABS”) is an Arizona 

Corporation, owned by Mr. Decker and his wife, Cheryl Dee Decker (“Mrs. Decker”),

and is the corporate entity that owns the return preparation store known as “Accountable 

Business Services” located in Gilbert, Arizona. “Accountable Business Services” is the 

registered trade name of Accountable Business Services, Inc.

BACKGROUND

7. Mr. Decker is not professionally certified as a return preparer. He graduated 

from college in 1974 with an accounting degree and worked for a small CPA firm for 

approximately one year. He worked at that firm during a single tax season. After leaving 

the CPA firm, Mr. Decker worked full-time as a Farmers Insurance agent until 2001.

8. Decker Enterprises, Inc., owned by Mr. Decker and his wife, was the initial 

corporate entity to operate the tax return preparation store known as Accountable 

Business Services, which began operating in 1982, and had initially registered the 

“Accountable Business Services” trade name. Mr. Decker prepared returns at this store 

on a part time basis until 2001.

9. In 2001, Mr. Decker began preparing returns full time at Accountable 

Business Services, the tax-return preparation store in Gilbert, Arizona. Over the years, 

many of Mr. Decker’s family members also worked at the tax-return preparation store, 

including Mrs. Decker, and a number of their adult children.

State of Arizona Investigation and Criminal Conviction

10. The State of Arizona conducted an examination of returns prepared by Mr. 

Decker, and initiated a criminal action against Mr. Decker for fraudulently preparing state

tax returns. In an indictment issued on September 13, 2007, the State of Arizona charged 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 3 of 23
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. Decker with over 50 criminal counts, including Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices (a 

class 2 felony) and Fraudulent Preparation of an Income Tax Return (a class 5 felony), as 

well as forgery and identity theft. See Indictment dated September 13, 2007, State of 

Arizona v. Alfred George Decker, Cheryl Dee Decker, et. al., CR2007-008286, Superior 

Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. A number of Mr. Decker’s family members were 

also charged with various tax fraud related counts in that same indictment, including Mrs. 

Decker, the couple’s four adult children, a nephew, and Mr. Decker’s brother.

11. On April 1, 2008, Mr. Decker pleaded guilty to Count 1 Fraudulent 

Schemes and Artifices (class 2 felony) (A.R.S. § 13-2310, 13-701, 13-702.01 and 13-

801) and guilty to Count 5 Fraudulent Preparation of an Income Tax Return (class 5 

felony) (A.R.S. § 42-1127, 13-701, 13-702, 13-702.01 and 13-801).

12. On August 6, 2008, the Superior Court sentenced Mr. Decker to be 

incarcerated in county jail for 12 months, and then suspended the sentence and granted 

Mr. Decker probation for a term of seven years (7 years for Count 1, 3 years for Count 5, 

both probation terms running concurrently). The Superior Court also ordered Mr. Decker

and Mrs. Decker (CR 2007-008286-002 SE) to pay restitution of $2,000,000.00 to the 

Arizona Department of Revenue.

Tax Preparation with Accountable Business Services, Inc.

13. In 2007, around the time of the State of Arizona’s criminal action discussed 

above, Decker Enterprises, Inc. was administratively dissolved, but Mr. Decker and his 

wife continued to operate the same return preparation store known as Accountable 

Business Services.

14. On December 15, 2010, Mr. Decker and his wife incorporated Accountable 

Business Services, Inc. which registered the trade name Accountable Business Services, 

and continued to operate the tax return preparation store located in Gilbert, Arizona.

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 4 of 23
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15. While Mr. Decker was on probation for his conviction involving the State 

of Arizona, he continued to prepare tax returns for his customers at ABS that understated 

customers’ tax liabilities.

16. In 2014, the Internal Revenue Service opened an investigation of Mr. 

Decker and ABS, and found that Mr. Decker and ABS prepared returns that understated 

tax liabilities based on unreasonable positions for which there was not substantial 

authority, and/or the understatements were made willfully, and/or the understatements

were made recklessly or with an intentional disregard of rules or regulations, which is 

conduct subject to penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6694. 

17. For the years 2011 thru 2015, ABS and Mr. Decker participated in the 

preparation and filing of 7,153 individual income tax returns and 1,206 entity returns

(trusts, partnerships, C-corporations, S-corporations), for a total of 8,359 tax returns.

These returns had a refund rate in excess of 70% and claimed the Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC) over 20% of the time.

18. Mr. Decker and ABS operate largely by referral and have about 2,500 

customers.

19. The number of tax returns filed with Mr. Decker’s Preparer Tax 

Identification Number (“PTIN”) has ranged from 1,512 to 1,926 from the year 2011 to 

2016.

20. Either Mr. Decker’s PTIN was listed on each of the returns prepared by 

ABS, or the returns were signed by Mr. Decker with a fabricated PTIN to evade detection

by the IRS that he was the return preparer. The use of a fabricated PTIN is conduct 

subject to penalty pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6695.

21. During the years 2008 through 2016, the IRS audited 1,454 tax returns 

prepared by ABS and Mr. Decker, and made adjustments in over 80% of the audits.

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 5 of 23
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Notwithstanding the State of Arizona criminal conviction, including

imposition of $2,000,000 in restitution, and specific warnings from the IRS, Mr. Decker 

and ABS continued to prepare and file income tax returns for their customers that took 

unreasonable and unjustified positions. The following examples demonstrate a pattern of 

abuse and misconduct that warrants an injunction barring Mr. Decker and ABS from 

preparing tax returns. To protect the privacy of the taxpayers discussed in these 

examples, they are identified by number (i.e., Customer 1).

Customer 1

23. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 1, an individual who ran a 

professional practice, for multiple years utilizing an elimination of income scheme that 

used two related business entities (Entity A and B) to hide income.

24. Mr. Decker and ABS prepared returns for Customer 1 that took 

unreasonable positions, willfully attempted to understate tax liabilities, or recklessly or 

intentionally disregarded rules or regulations.

25. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 1, Entity A (professional 

practice wholly owned by Customer 1), and Entity B (management consulting firm 

wholly owned by Customer 1). Entity A ostensibly paid Entity B management fees for 

purportedly providing billing related support for Customer 1’s professional practice. 

26. The returns prepared for both Entity A and Entity B frequently claimed 

personal expenses as business expenses, essentially zeroing out large amounts of taxable 

income. For example, Entity A claimed the following as business expenses: (1) payments 

for the personal residential mortgage of Customer 1, categorized as a “rent” expense; (2)

payments for home improvement expenses for the personal residence categorized as 

“repair and maintenance” expenses; (3) payments for Customer 1’s gym membership

categorized as “dues and subscriptions” for the business; (4) payments related to a family 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 6 of 23
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dog was categorized as business “security expenses”; (5) payments for personal 

groceries, categorized as “office expenses” or “office supplies”; and (6) personal student 

loan payments for education in prior years, categorized as a “training/continuing 

education” business expense. Additionally, Entity B claimed as “employee benefits” what 

were in fact transfers of tens of thousands of dollars to Customer 1’s personal investment 

account, and also claimed a “rent expense” for payments of the residential mortgage of 

Customer 1’s home. Entity B improperly claimed payments for personal expenses as

repair and maintenance business expenses as well. 

27. The returns prepared by Mr. Decker for Entity A and Entity B ignored basic 

tax law, by improperly claiming personal expenses as business deductions. For example, 

the returns improperly claimed payments for personal vehicles (not used for business) as 

a business expense, improperly deducted Customer 1’s student loan payments (both 

principal and interest were deducted) as a business expense, and ignored the 50% 

limitation on meal and entertainment deductions. Consequently, Mr. Decker improperly 

eliminated significant amounts of the income actually earned by Entity A and Entity B by 

claiming deductions not permitted by law, and not properly accounting for the income 

earned by the various entities.

28. The returns Mr. Decker prepared for Customer 1 failed to account for

distributions and wages as required by law. Entity A and Entity B are both SCorporations whose items of income, deduction, loss or credit must “flow-through” to the 

shareholder’s (i.e. Customer 1’s) personal income tax return. Mr. Decker prepared returns

for Customer 1 that failed to claim a number of taxable distributions from Entity A and 

Entity B on Customer 1’s individual income tax returns. 

29. In order for Entity A and Entity B to legally claim certain deductions for

payments to third-parties, each entity was required to issue Forms 1099 (used to report 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 7 of 23
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

such payments) to the payees and also file Forms 1099 with the IRS. Mr. Decker 

prepared returns claiming deductions for payments to third-parties on behalf of Entity A 

and B without preparing or otherwise ensuring these information returns were properly 

prepared and submitted. Additionally, the entities neither issued nor filed the required 

Forms 1099 for the payments claimed on the returns prepared by Mr. Decker.

Customers 2 & 3

30. Mr. Decker and ABS prepared tax returns for Customers 2 and 3 that used

multiple related business entities in such a way as to improperly and significantly lower 

the tax liabilities of Customers 2 and 3, and further required the IRS to expend significant 

resources to unwind the illegally prepared returns. 

31. For example, Customer 2, a professional who had multiple locations for his 

professional practices, and his business partner Customer 3, sold one of their professional

practices for a set price and also sold the underlying real estate (i.e. office building) to the 

same unrelated third-party buyer.

32. Customer 2 and Customer 3 had previously set up two partnerships, 

Partnership A that owned the professional practice that was sold, and Partnership B that 

owned the underlying real estate. Partnership A (professional practice) was actually a 

partnership between, Entity C, Customer 2’s wholly-owned S-Corporation, and Entity D, 

Customer 3’s wholly-owned S-Corporation. Similarly, Partnership B (real estate 

partnership) was actually a partnership between Entity C (owned by Customer 2) and 

Entity D (owned by Customer 3).

//

//

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 8 of 23
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33. The chart below summarizes the relationship between the entities and the 

individuals:

34. When Partnership A received payment for the sale of the professional

practice and Partnership B received payment for the sale of the underlying real estate, 

each partnership had a taxable and reportable event which respectively flowed through to 

Entity C’s (Customer 2’s S-Corporation) and Entity D’s (Customer 3’s S-Corporation)

corporate returns, and on to the individual income tax returns of Customer 2 and 

Customer 3 (i.e. after flowing through the S-Corporations to the individual customer’s 

returns).

35. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Partnership A (professional practice) and 

Partnership B (real estate holding partnership), as well as Entity C (Customer 2’s SCorporation) and Entity D (Customer 3’s S-Corporation), along with the individual 

income tax returns for Customers 2 and 3. Each of these six tax returns prepared by Mr. 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 9 of 23
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Decker should have reflected the tax consequences of the sale of the business and real 

property.

36. Mr. Decker was given accounting records, including printouts of 

QuickBooks and a copy of the purchase contracts that he should have used to properly 

reflect the sale and the appropriate tax consequences on each of the relevant returns.

37. However, the partnership returns prepared by Mr. Decker did not report the 

contracted sale prices. The S-Corporation returns for Entity C and D did not reflect the

sale prices, and reported fabricated basis amounts (falsely deflating the amount of gain on 

the sale). Further, the taxable events that should have flowed through to the individual 

income tax returns were never reported, and consequently not taxed on the returns 

prepared by Mr. Decker.

38. Mr. Decker also prepared tax returns for Customer 2’s second professional

practice Entity E (another S-Corporation wholly-owned by Customer 2). Customer 2 

provided Mr. Decker with accounting records, including QuickBooks statements, profit 

and loss statements and bank statements. In one audited year, the amounts reported on 

Entity E’s tax returns for employee benefits and outside services did not correspond to 

the general ledger, and were fictitious amounts. In the subsequent audited year, business 

expenses of Entity E were inflated by Mr. Decker as being over $200,000, even though

the amount listed in the general ledger provided to Mr. Decker was under $25,000.

39. The returns prepared by Mr. Decker and ABS for entities C, D, and E, 

along with Partnerships A and B, as well as Customers 2 and 3 took unreasonable

positions, and/or willfully attempted to understate the liability for tax on the returns, 

and/or recklessly or intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 10 of 23
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Customer 4

40. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 4, another professional. Mr. 

Decker incorrectly advised Customer 4 that he could deduct his student loan principal 

and interest payments (incurred in prior years) as business deductions. Mr. Decker 

prepared returns claiming approximately $100,000 in student loan principal and interest

payments as investment interest in the first audited year and over $100,000 of payments 

that included both principal and interest, as being “education interest” in the second 

audited year.

41. Mr. Decker also improperly claimed the full amount of Customer 4’s 

personal mortgage payments as a business rent expense. Customer 4 did not operate a

business out of his personal residence. Even assuming Customer 4’s business was paying 

“rent” to Customer 4, then Customer 4 would be required to claim these “rent” payments 

as income on his personal income tax returns. No such rental income was shown on the 

returns prepared by Mr. Decker.

42. Businesses that operate under a cash basis accounting method cannot claim 

bad debt expenses as business expenses. Only a business using the accrual accounting 

method is permitted by law to take such a deduction. Customer 4’s business operated on a 

cash basis, and Mr. Decker prepared a return for that business that improperly claimed a 

bad debt expense as a business deduction.

43. Mr. Decker and ABS prepared returns for Customer 4 that improperly 

claimed deductions, and these positions were unreasonable, and/or they willfully 

attempted to understate the liability for tax on the return, and/or they recklessly or 

intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 11 of 23
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Customer 5

44. Customer 5 is in the business of buying, renovating, and selling (i.e. 

flipping) houses. Mr. Decker advised Customer 5 to time the purchase of the houses he 

sought to flip at the end of the calendar year, but then wait to sell the houses until the next

year (i.e. buy the house in year 1, sell in year 2). Mr. Decker incorrectly advised

Customer 5 that the money Customer 5 spent purchasing the houses was fully deductible 

in the calendar year that the house was purchased (i.e. year 1), rather than when the house 

is actually sold (i.e. year 2). The Internal Revenue Code and the associated regulations, 

require that the acquisition costs related to flipping houses be capitalized (i.e. added to 

the basis of each respective house), such that those acquisition costs are later factored 

into determining the actual profit (and income from the sale) whenever the house is sold.

45. Mr. Decker wrongly deducted the full acquisition costs of two houses in the 

year the homes were purchased, even though the houses were not sold by Customer 5 in 

that calendar year. By deducting the cost of the purchases in the earlier year, instead of 

capitalizing the expenses and deducting the acquisition costs in the following year when 

each house was sold, Mr. Decker improperly claimed a loss that Customer 5 was not 

entitled to claim. That is, Mr. Decker fabricated a loss in an earlier year by claiming 

acquisition costs for a house that wasn’t sold or flipped until the next year.

46. Additionally, Mr. Decker listed meal and entertainment expenses as 

advertising expenses to avoid statutory limitations on the amounts of meal and 

entertainment expenses that can be deducted (i.e. only 50% of certain meal and 

entertainment expenses can be deducted). 

47. By claiming deductions not allowed by law and hiding expenses in 

incorrect categories to avoid legal limitations, Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 12 of 23
13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 that took unreasonable positions, and/or willfully attempted to understate Customer 5’s 

tax liabilities, and/or recklessly or intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

Customer 6

48. Customer 6, a real estate agent, provided detailed monthly category-based 

expense sheets, along with an annual summary to Mr. Decker for both the 2012 and 2013 

tax years. Mr. Decker prepared tax returns for each of these years that included amounts 

that did not correspond to the summary expense sheets provided to him by his Customer.

49. Mr. Decker inflated expenses, reporting amounts in excess of those listed 

on the summary sheets provided. He deducted 100% of meal and entertainment expenses 

by claiming the amount as advertising expenses, deducted nondeductible life insurance 

premiums payments, deducted amounts that exceeded the $25 limitation for businessrelated gifts, and deducted personal expenses, including personal loan payments, as 

business expenses.

50. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 6 that ignored the 50% limit on 

meal and entertainment deductions, ignored the limitations on deductions for business 

gifts, and for life insurance premium payments, and incorrectly claimed personal loan 

payments as business expenses.

51. Mr. Decker inflated the expenses claimed in order to illegally lower

Customer 6’s income and make Customer 6 ostensibly eligible for the Earned Income 

Tax Credit (EITC) for each of the years 2012 and 2013. After audit examination, 

Customer 6 paid back the amounts of the EITC that were improperly claimed, because 

Customer 6’s income was in fact much higher. Customer 6 was ineligible for this tax 

credit targeted towards families with lower earned incomes.

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 13 of 23
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

52. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 6 that took unreasonable 

positions, and/or willfully attempted to understate Customer 6’s tax liabilities, and/or 

recklessly or intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

Customer 7

53. For Customer 7, an individual that owned a professional practice (SCorporation), Mr. Decker prepared both corporate and personal income tax returns.

Customer 7 gave Mr. Decker copies of QuickBooks printouts for the professional

practice to aid in preparing the corporate returns.

54. Mr. Decker inflated the QuickBooks data by a factor of 10 when claiming 

deductions for the business. Specifically, an expense for outside services that was listed 

as approximately $5,000 on the QuickBooks summary was reported by Mr. Decker as 

being over $55,000 on the S-Corporation’s return. For another year, the cost of labor was 

listed on the summary provided by Customer 7 as under $6,000, but Mr. Decker inflated 

the expense and reported it as approximately $60,000.

55. Customer 7 was unaware that Mr. Decker deducted thousands of dollars of 

Customer 7’s personal student loan payments as business expenses. Customer 7 was also 

unaware of the 50% limitation on deducting meals and entertainment expenses. Mr. 

Decker had advised Customer 7 that 100% of the meal and entertainment expenses could 

be, and ultimately were, claimed as deductions.

56. Mr. Decker prepared returns for Customer 7 that took unreasonable 

positions, and/or willfully attempted to understate Customer 7’s tax liabilities, and/or 

recklessly or intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

Customer 8

57. Customer 8, the 99% owner of an internet-based company, Partnership C, 

provided Mr. Decker with bank account statements, Paypal summaries, and American 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 14 of 23
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Express statements for both 2012 and 2013, to prepare both Customer 8’s individual 

returns and Partnership C’s return (Form 1065).

58. For 2012, Customer 8 gave Mr. Decker a summary revenue and expense 

sheet for Partnership C, listing a detailed amount in gross receipts. However, Mr. Decker 

understated the amount by $50,000 in the return he prepared for Partnership C.

59. Mr. Decker prepared his own summary for 2013, ostensibly using the 

information provided by Customer 8, but still underreported Partnership C’s gross 

income by over $150,000. Additionally, Mr. Decker fabricated a legal fee expense in 

excess of $400,000 on Partnership C’s 2013 partnership return.

60. Customer 8 was unaware that the gross income reported by Mr. Decker did 

not match the information the customer had provided to Mr. Decker, and was also 

unaware that Mr. Decker had fabricated the $400,000 legal fee expense reported on the 

return.

61. Adjustments during the audit resulted in over $225,000 in additional tax for 

the 2013 tax year and an additional tax liability of approximately $45,000 for the 2012 

tax year for Customer 8.

62. Mr. Decker and ABS prepared returns for Customer 8 and Partnership C 

that took unreasonable positions, and/or willfully attempted to understate Customer 8’s 

tax liabilities, and/or recklessly or intentionally disregarded tax rules or regulations.

HARM CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT

63. Mr. Decker’s customers have been harmed by his actions because they paid 

fees for the preparation of proper tax returns, but Mr. Decker has prepared returns that 

took unreasonable positions, willfully understated his customers’ tax liabilities, and 

recklessly or intentionally disregarded rules or regulations to improperly claim refunds or 

credits. Many of his customers may be liable for sizeable penalties and interest.

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 15 of 23
16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

64. Mr. Decker and ABS have caused harm to the United States by preparing 

tax returns that illegally create or overstate his customers’ refunds. Additionally, Mr. 

Decker and ABS’s activities have caused irreparable harm to the United States in that his 

activities undermine the public confidence in the administration of the federal tax system 

and encourage noncompliance with the internal revenue laws by encouraging taxpayers 

to claim deductions to which they are not entitled, and omit taxable income that should 

flow-through partnerships and S-Corporations to personal income tax returns.

65. Mr. Decker’s and ABS’s conduct has further irreparably harmed the United 

States because the IRS must devote its limited resources to identifying his customers,

ascertaining whether they are associated with any of his other customers (i.e. corporate 

entities, partnerships etc.), and further ascertaining their correct tax liabilities, recovering 

any refunds erroneously issued, and collecting additional taxes and penalties owed. The 

expenditure of these resources due to the illegal preparation of tax returns by Mr. Decker 

and ABS caused irreparable harm to the United States.

COUNT I: INJUNCTION UNDER 26 U.S.C. § 7407

66. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs one (1) through sixty-five (65), above.

67. Section 7407 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes a district court to 

enjoin a tax return preparer from engaging in certain prohibited conduct or from further 

acting as a return preparer. An injunction is warranted where the preparer’s conduct, inter 

alia, includes: (a) engaging in conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6694 or

6695, or subject to criminal penalty provided by the Internal Revenue Code; or (b) 

engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with 

the proper administration of the internal revenue laws.

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 16 of 23
17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

68. In order for a court to issue such an injunction, the court must find (1) that 

the preparer has engaged in the specified conduct defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1), 

which includes having engaged in any conduct subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694, 

and (2) that injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of the conduct.

69. The court may permanently enjoin the person from further acting as a 

federal tax return preparer if it finds that a preparer has continually or repeatedly engaged 

in such conduct, and the court further finds that a narrower injunction (i.e. prohibiting 

only that specific enumerated conduct) would not be sufficient to prevent that person’s 

interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws.

70. Mr. Decker engages in a variety of fabrications and manipulations to 

achieve the intended tax results. As described above, Mr. Decker and ABS have 

continually and repeatedly prepared returns that claimed deductions to which the 

taxpayer was not entitled, ignored basic principles of tax law by claiming personal 

expenses as business deductions, ignored limitations on certain types of deductions by 

hiding the expense in a different category (e.g. avoid 50% limitation on meals and 

entertainment expenses by listing them as advertising expenses), and manipulated

different entities’ (partnerships, S-Corporations, LLC) tax returns to try to hide or 

eliminate income and zero-out customers’ tax liabilities.

71. Mr. Decker and ABS act with the knowledge that the positions taken on the 

returns they’ve prepared are unreasonable and lack substantial authority. Mr. Decker 

and/or ABS have continually or repeatedly engaged in conduct subject to penalty under 

26 U.S.C. § 6694(a), which is conduct described in 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(A).

72. Mr. Decker and ABS have continually or repeatedly engaged in fraudulent 

or deceptive conduct which has substantially interfered with the proper administration 

and enforcement of the internal revenue laws, which as conduct described in 26 U.S.C. 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 17 of 23
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§ 7407(b)(1)(B) justifies enjoining Mr. Decker as a tax return preparer under 26 U.S.C. § 

7407. Many of Mr. Decker’s schemes are implemented in such a way as to require the 

expenditure of significant resources on the part of the IRS to uncover and correct the 

various schemes.

73. Mr. Decker and ABS have continually or repeatedly prepared returns that 

willfully attempted to understate the liability for tax on the return or recklessly or 

intentionally disregarded relevant rules or regulations in the preparation of returns, which 

is conduct described in 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1)(A), and subject to penalty under 26 

U.S.C. § 6694(b).

74. The imposition of penalties and a prior criminal conviction has failed to 

deter Mr. Decker. Mr. Decker’s and ABS’s continual or repeated conduct subject to 

penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694 occurred even after the state level criminal conviction for 

similar conduct. 

75. A more limited injunction would not prevent Mr. Decker’s and ABS’s 

interference with the proper administration of the internal revenue laws, given the variety 

of fabrications and manipulations utilized to achieve the intended tax results, and the 

prior penalties and criminal convictions failing to deter Mr. Decker.

76. Mr. Decker and ABS have engaged in the specified conduct defined in 26 

U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1) and injunctive relief is appropriate to prevent the recurrence of the 

conduct. Further, Mr. Decker and ABS have continually or repeatedly engaged in the 

specified conduct defined in 26 U.S.C. § 7407(b)(1), and a narrower injunction would not 

be sufficient to prevent the recurrence of such conduct. Mr. Decker and ABS should be 

permanently enjoined from further acting as a federal tax return preparer pursuant to 26 

U.S.C. § 7407.

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 18 of 23
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT II: INJUNCTION UNDER 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a)

77. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations contained in 

paragraphs one (1) through sixty-five (65), above.

78. Section 7402 of the Internal Revenue Code authorizes a district court to 

issue orders of injunction as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of the 

internal revenue laws.

79. Mr. Decker and ABS, through the actions described above, have repeatedly 

and continually engaged in conduct that substantially interferes with the enforcement of 

the internal revenue laws.

80. Unless enjoined, Mr. Decker and ABS are likely to continue to engage in 

such improper conduct and interfere with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws. If 

they are not enjoined from engaging in return preparation, the United States will suffer 

irreparable injury by wrongfully providing federal income tax refunds to individuals not 

entitled to receive them, much of which may never be discovered and recovered. The 

United States will also suffer irreparable injury because it will have to devote substantial 

unrecoverable time and resources to auditing Mr. Decker’s customers to detect future 

returns understating customers’ liabilities or overstating their refunds.

81. Enjoining Mr. Decker and ABS is in the public interest because an 

injunction, backed by the Court’s contempt powers if needed, will stop their illegal 

conduct and the harm it causes the United States.

82. The Court should therefore impose injunctive relief under 26 U.S.C. § 

7402(a).

//

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 19 of 23
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, the United States of America, prays for judgment on all 

counts as follows:

A. That the Court find that Alfred George Decker and the business, 

Accountable Business Services, Inc., have continually or repeatedly engaged in conduct 

subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6694 and have continually or repeatedly engaged in 

other fraudulent and deceptive conduct that substantially interferes with the 

administration of the tax laws, and that injunctive relief barring them from acting as 

federal tax return preparers is appropriate under 26 U.S.C. § 7407 to prevent recurrence 

of that conduct;

B. That the Court find that Alfred George Decker by himself, and through his 

business Accountable Business Services, Inc., has engaged in conduct that substantially 

interferes with the enforcement of the internal revenue laws, and that injunctive relief is 

appropriate to prevent the recurrence of that conduct pursuant to the Court’s inherent 

equity powers and 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a);

C. That the Court enter a permanent injunction prohibiting Alfred George 

Decker, Accountable Business Services, Inc., and all those in active concert or 

participation with them from:

i. Acting as a federal tax return preparer or requesting, assisting in, or 

directing the preparation or filing of federal tax returns, amended 

returns, or other related documents or forms for any person or entity 

other than themselves;

ii. Preparing or assisting in preparing or filing federal tax returns, amended 

returns, or other related documents or forms, that they know or 

reasonably should know would result in an understatement of tax 

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 20 of 23
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

liability or the overstatement of federal tax refund(s) as penalized by 26 

U.S.C. § 6694;

iii. Owning, operating, managing, working in, investing in, providing 

capital or loans to, consulting with, or franchising a tax return 

preparation business;

iv. Maintaining, assigning, holding, using, or obtaining a Preparer Tax 

Identification Number (PTIN) or an Electronic Filing Identification 

Number (EFIN);

v. Engaging in any other activity subject to penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 

6694, or any other penalty provision in the Internal Revenue Code; and

vi. Engaging in any conduct that substantially interferes with the proper 

administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws;

D. That the Court enter an injunction requiring that Mr. Decker, within 30 

days of entry of the injunction, contact by United States mail and, if an e-mail address is 

known, by e-mail, all persons for whom he prepared a federal tax return since January 1, 

2012 to inform them of the permanent injunction entered against him, including sending a 

copy of the order of permanent injunction but not enclosing any other documents or 

enclosures unless agreed to by counsel for the United States or approved by the Court, 

and file with the Court a sworn certificate stating that he has complied with this 

requirement;

E. That the Court enter an injunction requiring Mr. Decker to produce to 

counsel for the United States within 30 days of entry of the injunction a list that identifies 

by name, social security number, address, e-mail address, telephone number, and tax 

period(s) all persons for whom he or associates working at Accountable Business 

Services prepared federal income tax returns or claims for refund since January 1, 2012;

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 21 of 23
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

F. That the Court enter an injunction requiring Mr. Decker to produce to 

counsel for the United States, within 30 days of entry of the injunction, copies of all 

federal income tax returns that he, or associates working at Accountable Business 

Services, prepared since January 1, 2012;

G. That the Court enter an injunction requiring Mr. Decker to provide a copy,

within 15 days, of the Court’s order to all of the principals, officers, managers, 

employees, and independent contractors of Accountable Business Services, Inc., and 

provide to counsel for the United States within 30 days a signed and dated 

acknowledgment of receipt of the Court’s order for each person to whom he provided a 

copy of such Order;

H. That the Court authorize the IRS, without further proceedings, to

immediately revoke any Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) or Electronic Filing 

Identification Number (EFIN) that is held by, assigned to, or used by Mr. Decker, 

pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6109;

I. That the United States be entitled to conduct discovery to monitor Mr. 

Decker and ABS’s compliance with the terms of any permanent injunction entered 

against them;

J. That the Court retain jurisdiction over the defendants and over this action to 

enforce any permanent injunction entered against them; and

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 22 of 23
23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K. That the Court grant the United States such other and further relief, 

including costs, as is just and equitable.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018.

Respectfully submitted,

RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

s/ Nithya Senra

NITHYA SENRA, CA SBN 291803

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney

District of Arizona

Of Counsel

Attorneys for the United States of America

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 23 of 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Civil Cover Sheet

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974. The data is

required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. The information contained herein neither replaces nor

supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the District of Arizona.

The completed cover sheet must be printed directly to PDF and filed as an attachment to the Complaint

or Notice of Removal.

Plaintiff(s): United States of America Defendant(s): Alfred George Decker ; Accountable

Business Services, Inc.

County of Residence: Maricopa County of Residence: Maricopa

County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Maricopa

Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

Nithya Senra , Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division

P.O. Box 683, Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044

(202) 307-6570

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 1. U.S. Government Plaintiff

III. Citizenship of Principal Parties

(Diversity Cases Only)

Plaintiff:-N/A

Defendant:-N/A

IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit: 870 Taxes US Plaintiff or Defendant

VI.Cause of Action: 26 USC 7407, 7402(a), Action to permanently enjoin tax return preparers

VII. Requested in Complaint

Class Action:No

Dollar Demand:-

Jury Demand:No

VIII. This case is not related to another case.

Signature: /s/ Nithya Senra

 Date: 2/22/2018

If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in your browser and change it.

Once correct, save this form as a PDF and include it as an attachment to your case opening documents.

Revised: 01/2014

Case 2:18-cv-00594-MHB Document 1-1 Filed 02/22/18 Page 1 of 1