“If this precedent stands, every American taxpayer is at risk of prosecution for issues the IRS encourages them to voluntarily fix. This must be corrected.”
- Former DOJ Official
Richard Brasser is a father, entrepreneur, and nationally respected business leader with a long record of honesty, community service, and economic contribution. He has built companies, advised Fortune 100 organizations, and paid millions in taxes over his career. His colleagues, attorneys, and executives who have worked with him for decades consistently describe him as honest, direct, and trustworthy.
Richard has no criminal history and has spent his life contributing to American business, technology, and charitable causes.
In 2016, Richard’s company fell behind on payroll trust fund taxes during a period of financial crisis due to sabotage by a small group of activist investors. Instead of hiding the problem, Richard and his COO voluntarily reported it to the IRS before any investigation existed. They entered the IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program, provided all records, made payments, and worked with IRS revenue officers for years.
By 2021, Richard had paid everything he owed, including interest and penalties. The IRS closed the matter and removed its lien.
Years later, the Department of Justice unexpectedly brought criminal charges over an issue the IRS had already resolved. There is evidence that the DOJ was persuaded by false reports by the activist investors and potentially aided by a member of the DOJ.
No. IRS revenue officers testified that they never referred Richard for criminal investigation. They worked with him civilly, accepted his participation in the Voluntary Disclosure Program, received all requested documents, and approved his repayment plan.
The IRS closed the matter and issued a lien release after confirming that Richard paid everything he owed.
Evidence from the Trial Transcript: (3-8-24) Trial
Evidence and public filings show that the DOJ did not begin by investigating taxes at all. The investigation began for unrelated reasons involving individuals tied to civil disputes with Richard’s company. After years of searching, prosecutors shifted their attention to the 2016 payroll tax issue, even though:
• Richard had already self-reported.
• The IRS had already resolved the matter.
• All taxes, interest, and penalties were already paid.
• No IRS agent recommended prosecution at any point.
Several former senior DOJ and IRS officials, including the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General who oversaw national tax enforcement, publicly criticized the indictment as “entirely unwarranted” and “one of the most serious examples of prosecutorial overreach” they have seen.
AP News Story Brasser
The jury acquitted Richard of the most serious charges:
• Tax evasion and Tax Fraud
• False tax returns
These are the charges that require evidence of willful intent to deceive.
The convictions involved a technical interpretation of a statute related to timing of payments, not intent to evade, and despite the fact that all taxes were already paid years before the indictment. These convictions are now being appealed.
No. The facts reveal the opposite.
During this period:
• His family home burned down.
• A contractor stole insurance funds.
• Thieves robbed his stored belongings.
• He and his family were left temporarily homeless.
• He took no salary for long periods in order to pay employees.
• He personally paid employee health insurance.
• He invested his own money to try to save his company.
• He paid every dollar of the tax obligations and penalties once he could.
These details are documented in filings and testimony.
Evidence: AP News Story Brasser
The DOJ press release suggested that Brasser was living the high life buying luxury furniture and cars, but left out the fact that they were replacing the items that they lost with insurance funds when their house burned to the ground.
There is no evidence of any willful attempt to evade taxes. The IRS’s own conduct confirms this. When the IRS believes someone is hiding money or acting dishonestly, it initiates a criminal referral. In Richard’s case, the IRS:
• Approved him for voluntary disclosure.
• Worked cooperatively with him for years.
• Classified the matter as a civil issue.
• Released its lien after accepting full repayment.
The jury also rejected allegations of intentional evasion.
The IRS Voluntary Disclosure Program exists to encourage taxpayers to come forward, admit mistakes, and resolve them without fear of prosecution. It is a cornerstone of the IRS’s compliance strategy and helps bring billions of dollars back into the tax system each year.
Richard did everything the program requires: self-report, cooperate, provide documents, and repay the taxes.
By prosecuting someone who followed the rules and paid everything, the DOJ has created a dangerous message:
“Even if you come forward, fix the issue, and fully cooperate, you can still be charged.”
Former DOJ and IRS leaders warn that this case risks destroying public trust in the Voluntary Disclosure Program and may reduce voluntary compliance across the country.
This is why members of Congress and policy leaders should care. This case affects every American taxpayer.
Because if the DOJ can criminalize a taxpayer who:
• Voluntarily came forward
• Cooperated for years
• Paid everything owed
• Was never referred by the IRS
• Acted with documented good faith
then every American taxpayer is at risk.
Small business owners, entrepreneurs, and families facing unexpected hardship could be criminally charged years later, even after resolving issues with the IRS.
If this precedent stands:
** Anyone who paid their taxes late in last 10 years could be prosecuted even if they paid in full
** Anyone who resolved a civil tax through a payment plan, an offer in compromise or VDP would be at risk for prosecution
** Voluntary disclosure becomes unsafe
** Honest taxpayers may avoid coming forward
** IRS compliance programs weaken
** Prosecutors gain broad power to criminalize civil disputes
This could have over a $10 billion dollar negative impact on the IRS's ability to collect revenue
This is why legal experts call this case a national warning