George Pragovich

[Demosthenes]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE TAX
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2010 (202) 514-2007
http://WWW.JUSTICE.GOV TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ASKS FEDERAL COURT TO BAR NATIONWIDE
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT SCHEME
Tennessee Man Allegedly Helped Customers File More Than 200 Lawsuits
against the United States in District of Columbia Federal Court
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department announced today it has sued George K. Pragovich of Clarksville, Tenn., to stop him from promoting an alleged nationwide scheme involving hundreds of frivolous lawsuits filed against the United States. According to the civil injunction lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tenn., Pragovich sells services and materials that help customers, many of whom have substantial federal income tax liabilities, to file frivolous lawsuits against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Customers from at least 35 different states have allegedly used Pragovich’s scheme to file over 200 of the frivolous lawsuits.
The government complaint alleges that Pragovich falsely tells customers that he can fix their tax problems and, in addition, help them get thousands of dollars from the government in damages, by helping them file the lawsuits. Pragovich also allegedly falsely tells customers that if their lawsuit is successful, they will never have to file a federal income tax return or pay federal income taxes again and that all of the lawsuits will eliminate the Internal Revue Service (IRS).
Pragovich, who the complaint says is not a lawyer, allegedly provides customers with ready-to-file lawsuit complaints that falsely claim that the IRS and its employees have unlawfully disclosed customers’ federal tax information or unlawfully collected taxes. Pragovich also allegedly provides customers with detailed instructions regarding how to file the complaints and how to respond to government motions in the lawsuits. According to the government’s complaint, Pragovich charges an average of about $7,500 per customer for these services, and has received a total of more than $1 million from his clients.
The government complaint alleges that the frivolous suits are largely premised on misguided tax protester arguments. The complaint says that almost every Pragovich-promoted case has been dismissed. One judge, in dismissing one of the cases, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and “groundless,” a “boilerplate pleading filed without concern for the law, the facts, or the redundant expenditure of judicial resources.”
Despite the repeated dismissals, Pragovich allegedly continues to promote the frivolous scheme, and frivolous suits continue to be filed with the court in the District of Columbia. Pragovich has allegedly stated to customers that he intends to “bury” the Department of Justice and the court system with at least 1,000 lawsuits in ten separate jurisdictions.
In the past decade the Tax Division has obtained injunctions against more than 435 tax preparers and tax fraud promoters. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department Web site.

[Demosthenes]

At various times, Pragovich has worked with both Royal Lamarr Hardy (currently serving a 13-year prison sentence) and Eddie Kahn (serving 10 years with an upcoming criminal trial on additional charges.)

[bmielke]

At various times, Pragovich has worked with both Royal Lamarr Hardy (currently serving a 13-year prison sentence) and Eddie Kahn (serving 10 years with an upcoming criminal trial on additional charges.)

Assuming he charge $7,500 per customer that's $1.5 Million if he didn't pay taxes on it, is it likely we will see criminal charges here?

[Demosthenes]

Yes.

[bmielke]

I just checked the Tennessee Attorney General's Website and they never filed a UPL Complaint against, that doesn't mean much, other than he wasn't likely on their radar because he stuck to Federal court.

[LPC]

Pragovich seems to have his own personal footnote in the 2009 Annual Report of the National Taxpayer Advocate. In the section on most litigated issues, specifically summons enforcements, the following cases are cited in footnote 38, page 343, for the proposition that the 1st Amendment does not protect false commercial speech:

Pragovich v. U.S., 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5188 (C.D. III. 2008); Pragovich v. U.S., 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5418 (M.D. Pa. 2008); Pragovich v. U.S. , 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5764 (S.D. III. 2008); Pragovich v. U.S., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102209 (N.D. Ind. 2008), adopted by 103 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 696 (N.D. Ind. 2009); Pragovich v. U.S., 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5260 (D. Haw. 2008), adopted by, petition denied by, objection overruled by 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5263 (D. Haw. 2008); Pragovich v. U.S., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80604 (M.D. Fla. 2008); Pragovich v. U.S. , 102 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7098 (D. Ariz. 2008) (all rejecting a third-party promoter's argument that the IRS issued the summons for the improper purpose of chilling promoter's first amendment rights).

[Joey Smith]

http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashvi ... ily25.html