United States v. Kenneth P. Kontny and Joann L. Kontny

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the enhancement was warranted where the defendants avoided employment taxes by writing separate checks to conceal overtime wages to employees and accounting for those additional amounts as non-wage expenses
• concluding that “sophisticated” as used in like adjustment for tax frauds under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1 refers to efforts “that go beyond” but “not necessarily far beyond” the typical case
• “Trickery, deceit, even impersonation do not render a confession inadmissible, certainly in noncustodial situations and usually in custodial ones as well, unless government agents make threats or promises.”
• “‘[S]ophistication’ refers ‘to the presence of efforts at conceal- ment that go beyond (not necessarily far beyond, for it is only a two-level enhancement …) the concealment inherent in [the] fraud.’”
• “‘[S]ophistication’ refers ‘to the presence of efforts at conceal- ment that go beyond (not necessarily far beyond, for it is only a two-level enhancement …) the concealment inherent in [the] fraud.’”
• an affirmative misrepresentation could occur where an agent “pretend[s] to be a U.S. Attorney and assure[s defendants] that they would not be prosecuted if they cooperated with him. . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).