Opinion ID: 2812339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gonzalez’s Sentencing

Text: Gonzalez and Alcime were sentenced on the same day, with Gonzalez’s sentencing occurring first. Gonzalez objected to the PSI’s imposition of offenselevel increases based on the loss amount and the number of victims, maintaining that she was innocent and therefore not responsible for the offense conduct. Gonzalez testified, stating that her employees prepared and filed the fraudulent tax returns at Luxury Tax using her PTIN and that she was unaware of the fraud and thought the money she was withdrawing from Luxury Tax’s bank accounts 6 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 7 of 27 constituted the fees paid for preparing the tax returns. Gonzalez claimed that another tax preparation service called Tax Time also had used her PTIN without her permission to file tax returns. The government responded that Gonzalez was not claiming that the loss amount was inaccurate, only that she was not guilty, but the jury had already established her guilt. The government presented testimony from IRS Special Agent Roberto Munoz, who investigated the tax fraud scheme and testified at trial. Agent Munoz testified, among other things, that after the jury’s verdict, he ascertained that 165 taxpayers had informed the IRS that they were victims of identity theft when the Defendants submitted fraudulent tax returns purportedly on their behalf. In evaluating those 165 tax returns, Agent Munoz determined that 41 returns were prepared by Alcime and 124 returns were prepared by Gonzalez. As to Alcime’s 41 fraudulent tax returns, the attempted fraud amount was $94,569, and the actual fraud amount was $82,521. As to Gonzalez’s 124 fraudulent tax returns, the attempted fraud amount was $290,801, and the actual fraud amount was $951,075, partly consisting of refunds for taxpayers’ advance payments of anticipated tax liability. The total actual fraud loss was $1,033,596, and no funds from Luxury Tax’s bank accounts went to any of the 165 taxpayers on whose behalf it filed returns. The government also submitted two spreadsheets reflecting the victims and the loss amounts as to Gonzalez and Alcime. Agent Munoz stated 7 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 8 of 27 that the spreadsheet for Gonzalez listed “[a]ll returns prepared by Ms. Gonzalez that have been confirmed as identity theft.” In mitigation, Gonzalez argued that she had no prior offenses and had never served time in prison. As such, a short sentence would deter her from returning to criminal behavior and would protect the public. Gonzalez personally addressed the district court, noting that she had two small children and had maintained a regular job as a supervisor for the last two years since Luxury Tax’s mistakes. Gonzalez also stated that she had no training in tax preparation, and had never intended for her business to operate as a tax fraud scheme, but should have supervised her employees more closely. When the district court asked why other people would use her PTIN to prepare fraudulent tax returns when she was the one who received the refunds, Gonzalez responded, “I have no idea.” After confirming with Gonzalez that she paid her tax preparers only $50 to $100 per return, the district court stated that the pattern in Luxury Tax’s filed returns “just jumps out at you that this was fraudulent tax filing.” The district court stated that Gonzalez was claiming she was duped by her tax preparers, but she “got all the money.” When Gonzalez continued to insist that she was unaware of the fraud while it was going on, the district court asked the government how much money went into Luxury Tax’s bank accounts. The government responded, “[i]n just tax year 8 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 9 of 27 2012 and only associated with the Luxury Tax filings, not even talking about the Tax Time fraudulent filings [that also used Gonzalez’s PTIN], . . . . $1.8 million was paid out and sent into these accounts that were controlled only by Ms. Gonzalez and Ms. Alcime.” The district court also confirmed with the government that it was seeking $2,062,217 in restitution. When the district court asked Gonzalez’s counsel his position on restitution, he responded, “I don’t believe that I can stand here and agree to any restitution amount because of the position that Ms. Gonzalez has taken.” The district court sustained Gonzalez’s objection to the number of victims, but overruled her objection to the loss amount. As to the number of victims, the district court found, based on Agent Munoz’s testimony, that the government had proved 50 or more victims, not the 250 or more victims stated in the PSI, and that only a 4-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) applied, and not the 6- level increase under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). As to the loss amount, the district court found that the amount of actual or intended loss was more than $1 million. Based on these findings, the district court calculated a total offense level of 26, which, with a criminal history category of I, yielded an advisory guidelines range of 63 to 78 months in prison. 9 Case: 14-11817 Date Filed: 06/26/2015 Page: 10 of 27 In considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court stated that the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming that Gonzalez and Alcime had orchestrated the fraud and that it did not make sense for someone else to use Gonzalez’s PTIN to commit the tax fraud, but not recoup the profits. The district court imposed concurrent 78-month sentences for the conspiracy offense in Count 1 and the theft of public money offenses in Counts 2 and 3 and concurrent 24month sentences for the aggravated identity theft offenses in Counts 4 and 5, which were required to run consecutive to Counts 1, 2, and 3, for a total sentence of 102 months. The district court also ordered Gonzalez to pay $1.8 million in restitution, in joint and several liability with Alcime.