I.R.S. Enrolled Agent Indicted For Conspiracy To Defraud The I.R.S.

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Frank Kelly, age 63, of New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, was indicted on August 26, 2020, for conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.  Kelly appeared before United State Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 4, 2020, and pled not guilty to the charge.  Trial is scheduled for November 2, 2020, before United States District Court Judge Jennifer P. Wilson.   

According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, Kelly was an enrolled agent with the I.R.S. which permitted him to represent clients who were being audited by the I.R.S.  The indictment alleges that in 2014 Kelly conspired with a client to defraud the I.R.S. with respect to the client’s 2010, 2011, and 2012 tax returns which were under civil audit.  Specifically, it is alleged that Kelly knowingly made false statements to the Revenue Agent who was conducting the audit that resulted in a lower amount of taxes being assessed against the client. 

The case was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Division of the I.R.S. and is assigned to Assistant United States Attorney Kim Douglas Daniel for prosecution.

Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.

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

The maximum penalty under federal law is 5 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, 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.

* * *