In re Krause
| Citation | 386 B.R. 785 |
| Decision Date | 21 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 05-17429.,Adversary No. 05-5775. |
| Court | United States Bankruptcy Courts. Tenth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Kansas |
| Parties | In re Gary E. KRAUSE, Debtor. United States of America, Plaintiff, and Linda S. Parks, Trustee, Intervener, v. Gary Krause and Richard Krause, Defendants and Drake Krause and Rick Krause, Intervener. |
Thomas W. Curteman Jr., US Department of Justice Tax Division, Hilarie E. Snyder, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff,
Gary E. Krause, pro se.
Michael Morris, Wichita, KS, for Intervener and Defendant,
Gaye B. Tibbets, Scott M. Hill, Hite Fanning and Honeyman LLP, Linda S. Parks, Wichita, KS, for Intervener,
Just ... follow the money ...1
Gary E. Krause is a man who has everything and owns nothing, largely by his own design. As will be described at considerable length in this opinion, debtor and defendant Gary E. Krause has spent the last two decades taking actions intended to shield his assets from the collection efforts of the United States. Following the money over the trail of Krause's asset manipulation is torturous. It involves numerous inter-entity and intra-family transfers that often occurred in close temporal proximity to proceedings or determinations by the IRS or the Tax Court that adversely affected Krause. At the center of these manipulations is Krause's antenuptial agreement with his former wife, Teresa Briggs, and transfers he made to her that violate the clear terms of that agreement. The sheer number and scope of the transactions assure that these are not coincidences. And, all of Krause's schemes had one ultimate goal: the protection of his property by placing it in the names of third parties or entities while retaining its full use and control.
Both the United States and chapter 7 trustee, Linda S. Parks sue for a determination that assets held by corporations, partnerships, and trusts associated with Krause are in fact his assets, subject to his dominion and control, and therefore subject to the legitimate claims of his principal creditor, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Balice, Civ. No. 14-3937 (KM)(JBC)
...and alter ego theory, the statute of limitations would be preempted by 26 U.S.C. § 6502 and the Supremacy Clause."); cf. In re Krause, 386 B.R. 785, 833-34 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008) ("[W]hether a party can sustain a fraudulent conveyance claim at present is a different question than whether it ......
-
Terrell v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Terrell)
...the imposition of a civil fraud penalty under Section 6663 of the Internal Revenue Code.16 United States v. Krause (In re Krause ), 386 B.R. 785, 824 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008) ; Dagostini v. Wisconsin Dep't of Revenue (In re Dagostini ), 482 B.R. 597, 600 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2012) ; Sommers v. IR......
-
In re Wilson
...(1) knowledge of the falsehood of the return; (2) an intent to evade taxes; and (3) an underpayment of the taxes. United States v. Krause, 386 B.R. 785, 825 (Bankr. D.Kan.2008) (collecting cases). These Courts have also set forth additional "badges of fraud" signaling a fraudulent return, i......
-
Vaughn v. United States Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Vaughn)
...(Bankr.D.Colo.2008), rev'd in part on other grounds, 407 B.R. 405 (10th Cir. BAP 2009) (citing United States v. Krause (In re Krause), 386 B.R. 785, 825 (Bankr.D.Kan.2008) (collecting cases)). See also In re Fliss, 339 B.R. 481, 486 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 2006); In re Schlesinger, 290 B.R. 529, 53......