Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue

Business


IRS seeks to enforce tax liens against Las Vegas company

The Internal Revenue Service wants to intervene in a lawsuit so that it can enforce $30 million in tax liens on money held in customer bank accounts for Las Vegas-based Asset Protection Group, which was shut down by a federal judge.

The IRS wants to participate in a civil case that the Federal Trade Commission brought against Asset Protection, alleging partners Richard Neiswonger and William Reed, a suspended attorney from Colorado, violated a permanent injunction. A St. Louis federal judge issued the injunction against Neiswonger 10 years ago for an allegedly deceptive business opportunity scheme.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • Harrah's Entertainment plans to lay off more workers
  • Casinos must wait for $800,000
  • $475 MILLION FOR SANDS: Loan fails to impress investors
  • PLAZA VERSUS PLAZA
  • Macau's drop-off hurting Las Vegas
  • INSIDE GAMING: Forty days, 40 nights and a cry of protest
  • Vegas atop home-price record drop
  • Greenspun Media Group lays off up to 10 percent of staff
  • FAA: Planes can't fly these crowded skies
  • MORTGAGE MELTDOWN: Report: Bailout tally high



  • After that business opportunity venture was shut down, Asset Protection was established in Las Vegas and operated as a resident agent. The company helped customers form corporations, enabling the customers to use "straw men" as their officers and directors and to keep the customers' ownership of the company secret as permitted under Nevada law.

    The Justice Department filed a motion this month, saying the government has identified 69 customers of Asset Protection who have $30 million in bank accounts that is subject to tax liens.

    Judge Stephen Limbaugh of St. Louis has not acted on the request from the Justice Department to intervene.

    The case raises issues about Nevada's permissive state laws on incorporation, partnerships and limited liability companies. The Nevada Legislature is considering bills that would tighten some of those laws, apparently in reaction to a hearing by the U.S. Senate Permanent Investigations Subcommittee in November. The subcommittee questioned why laws in Nevada, Delaware and Wyoming do not require companies to disclose more information about ownership, officers and directors.

    Subcommittee members expressed concern that Nevada laws enable criminals to hide drug money, launder money and evade income taxes, as well as potentially finance terrorism.

    Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich, cited Nevada First Holdings of Las Vegas as an example of reasons for concern. Nevada First helps businesses incorporate, using "straw men" rather than the actual name of company officers and directors, and helps these companies open bank accounts, which is legal under Nevada laws.

    Levin did not mention that Wayne Andre McMiniment, who operated Nevada First Holdings, pleaded guilty in 2000 to two counts of wire fraud and embezzling $2 million from clients. McMiniment was sentenced to 52 months in prison for those crimes, and U.S. District Judge Philip Pro put McMiniment on three years of probation for willful failure to pay child support.

    During his probation, the U.S. Probations and Parole office complained that McMiniment was continuing to be involved in the operation of Nevada First Holdings, the resident agent business, but Pro ruled against the probations office.

    Neiswonger, a partner in Asset Protection, also served time in federal prison. In 1998, Neiswonger pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering. Neiswonger served 12 months of an 18-month prison term. He was ordered to pay $2.75 million in restitution.

    His conviction followed a lawsuit that the FTC filed, alleging deceptive marketing programs that said individuals could earn six-figure incomes based on training Neiswonger sold for $10,000. Neiswonger agreed to a permanent injunction.

    However, in July, the FTC filed papers in a St. Louis federal court alleging that Neiswonger violated the permanent injunction. Neiswonger attorney Richard McAllister of Denver denied that the FTC was accusing his client of violating the permanent injunction and said Neiswonger did not violate the injunction.

    "We believe they should be held responsible for their contemptuous actions," Millard said.

    An attorney for Reed did not return calls for comment.

    The FTC accused Asset Protection of selling a $9,800 training program for Asset Protection consultants and of making false statements to 2,000 consumers who paid for the training.

    In promoting the business opportunity, Asset Protection said consumers to make hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly selling asset protection services to customers. About 94 percent of the trained consultants failed to earn enough to cover the cost of the training, the FTC reported.

    Yet Asset Protection prospered. Over 5 1/2 years, Asset Protection received $19.8 million from selling the training program alone, according to a court document filed by FTC attorney Joshua Millard.

    The consultants were told they would be selling "complete protection against asset seizure by the IRS or other government agencies."

    While many sales consultants were unsuccessful, Asset Protection did set up companies owned by customers and filed a so-called "friendly trust deed" or loan secured by real estate owned by the customer, according to court documents.

    A lender company then put a lien on the real estate. The lender was a company controlled by the customer, but the liens discouraged legitimate creditors from trying to seize the property because it appeared there was no equity in the property, according to court papers.

    The receiver also found that customers transferred funds to an Asset Protection escrow account and transferred money to the customer's separate account. The receiver decided the activities had the "potential to facilitate money laundering."

    Court papers say the receiver for Asset Protection discovered 1,000 accounts totaling $10 million were opened by Asset Protection at Bank of Nevada.

    Asset Protection also is accused of advising customers to misrepresent ownership of Nevada corporations. Customers were told to issue a so-called bearer stock certificate that indicated that whoever held the stock certificate owned the company.

    "Through this device, Reed advised customers that they could hid and legally deny any ownership of the corporation," the Justice Department said in a court papers.

    The judge allowed receiver Robb Evans of Las Vegas to close the operations of Asset Protection.

    The federal agency urged the judge to find Neiswonger and Reed in contempt of court and to require the defendants to disgorge money received from sales of the training program.



    Leave Your Comment 1 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    John O'Neill wrote on April 21, 2007 07:37 AM: "Potential to facilitate money laundering."

    (definition: you might do something wrong, so as the federal government we can stop you before you do, because this isn't America anymore it is the United States! And we no longer like potential)

    “The subcommittee questioned why laws in Nevada, Delaware and Wyoming do not require companies to disclose more information about ownership, officers and directors.”

    (definition: We question why you think you are actually free, this isn't America anymore this is the United States! And as is our right we will no longer allow people to do things that give them a false sense of freedom)

    “Enable criminals to hide drug money, launder money and evade income taxes”

    (definition: since you apparently might, just maybe be able to do something wrong we will trample your rights as an American...ha ha ha, got ya, this isn't America this is the USA)

    “potentially finance terrorism”

    (definition: if there is even the slightest chance of an actual citizen doing something wrong, we'll stop it in the name of protecting our country...wait a second, did we put anybody down at the border?)

    “consumers who paid for the training”

    (definition: Americans are lazy slugs who have no actual ability to discern between reality and fantasy, and are not able to understand the concept of let the buyer beware. Personal responsibility is no longer required; we'll do that for you)