Due to the lapse in appropriations, Department of Justice websites will not be regularly updated. The Department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions will continue. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Dunmore Tax Return Preparer Pleads Guilty To Tax Evasion

     The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Dominick J. Muracco, Jr., age 60, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, pled guilty in federal court in Wilkes-Barre before Senior U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo to attempted income tax evasion regarding his 2008 federal income tax return. Sentencing was scheduled for August 15, 2013.

     According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, Muracco previously operated a business in Dunmore, Pennsylvania known as Automated Payroll and Tax Service (“APTS”) which prepared tax returns and represented taxpayers before the IRS. Muracco admitted today that he filed a false income tax return for 2008 which omitted over $125,000 in taxable income and over $31,000 in tax. Muracco also admitted that for the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, he under-reported his income by over $276,000 and his tax by over $63,000. The unreported income came primarily from fees that Muracco charged APTS clients for tax program services.

     The case was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS and is assigned to Senior Litigation Counsel Bruce Brandler for prosecution.

     A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

     In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is five years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, restitution and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.

Updated April 16, 2015