Federal criminal issues.

It is relatively unprecedented for the Criminal Investigative Division of the IRS to be involved in a search and seizure action against an MLM company. No public explanation was given by the IRS or the U.S. Postal Service for the search and seizure actions other than an ongoing investigation. However, the last time such significant federal involvement occurred in a criminal investigation was in the criminal prosecution of the pyramid scheme, Gold Unlimited, in Kentucky. That case resulted in criminal convictions of the promoters. Although civil consumer protection actions are often brought against network marketing companies, it is rare to see federal criminal involvement. Only time will tell the meaning of this involvement in The Tax People case.

2. Kansas sales referral statutes.

Although the Kansas Attorney General used the word "pyramid" in describing the Renaissance program, it actually did not sue the company under the Kansas pyramid statute. Instead the State of Kansas sued the company under the Kansas sales referral law, which makes it a deceptive practice in a consumer transaction to induce consumers to buy products or services by promising rewards if they find other consumers to do the same and the rewards are contingent upon other consumers purchasing. Such sales referral laws have been adopted in many states and were the result of legislation introduced in the aftermath of the door-to-door aluminum siding salesmen as immortalized in the movie "Tin Men" with Danny DeVito and Richard Dreyfuss. These statutes are seldom used, but it appears to be the position of the Kansas Attorney General that individuals were recruited into the Renaissance business opportunity in their capacity as consumers rather than distributors.

1. The Tax People falsely claimed that its tax relief system was approved for continuing education credit for CPAs.

2. The Tax People falsely claimed that its new participants were automatically entitled to $5,000 in new tax deductions and unable to reduce their current tax withholding, giving them an immediate pay raise of $500 per month.

3. The Tax People violated Kansas's sales referral law by inducing consumers to buy its tax system by promises that they would make money by referencing others to do the same.

4. The Tax People claimed to be a publicly held company when it was not, and that it was engaged in the sale of unregistered securities in the State of Kansas.

5. The Tax People offered a 30-day refund policy, but shuffled the customers around so that they could not effectively achieve a refund.

6. The Attorney General charged that new recruits qualified for commissions and an active position in the pay plan by buying a $300 tax relief system in a box, which contained tax education materials, and a $100 per month subscription to tax services. The State alleged the new recruits were encouraged to buy a founder's pack which contained four tax relief systems for $1,200, which entitled participants to four positions in the pay plan. The principal pyramid allegation was that participants made their money by finding new distributors to buy tax products and services as opposed to earning money by selling to nonparticipant retail customers.

1. The principal owner of The Tax People had previous problems with the Kansas Attorney General's office. It was a mistake for the owner to start a new business in the State of Kansas, as his business would be an automatic target.

2. For a long time before the filing of the lawsuit, the company should have known that the Kansas Attorney General had significant concern about whether or not The Tax People was a "pyramid." At an earlier point in time, the company should have relocated its business to another state. It should have seen that it was headed for trouble in the State of Kansas. By headquartering in the State of Kansas, it could be assured that, if the State of Kansas took action against the company, it would impair or shut down its entire U.S. national operations.

3. The company risked legal attack by selling high ticket items in multi-packs and paying commissions before demonstrated use by retail customers. The presence or absence of nonparticipant retail customer requirements is critical with this type of product.

4. Individuals appear to be approached in their capacity as consumers rather than distributors. There may have been a failure on the part of the company to distinguish the identity of consumer versus distributor.

5. The allowance of multiple positions in a pay plan creates a gamelike element that makes any company a target for regulatory agencies. Such plans were first promulgated in the Gold Unlimited-type schemes, followed by the over-priced prepaid telephone card-type programs. Such programs were often described as "binaries" or "trinaries." A binary compensation plan is not, in itself, illegal, but the effectuation of such programs with founder's packs, turbo packs, multiple pay positions, etc. has promoted their disrepute among regulatory agencies.

6. A company which adopts a highly restrictive refund policy or a refund program which is frustrating to participants is surely one which will create scrutiny by regulatory agencies.

7. If ultimately in the legal the process The Tax People is able to demonstrate a high ratio of nonparticipant retail customers to its participant base, it will survive legal scrutiny. (As to nonparticipant customer to participant ratios, four to one would be great. One to one would be very troubling. One to four, arising for founder's packs, would be devastating.) If in fact the real money to be made in The Tax People program was in the sale of tax packages to participants, and if in fact there was very little "retailing" to nonparticipants, and if in fact most of the money was to be made by causing other participants to buy multiple packs of uninitiated tax systems, the defense would be very difficult.

8. Why are they buying multiples of a $300 box of materials? Why are there multiple pay positions? In addition, must distributors pay $100 per month to keep active each pay position if they have not signed on an actual "retail customer" who is using the service? The bottom line in analyzing The Tax People program is the question: Why are people buying tax systems? If participants and customers are buying them because the products and services stand on their own, and they want and use them, the company has a good defense. If, on the other hand, the primary reason that participants were purchasing tax systems was to "buy into the deal," neither The Tax People nor companies organized like this can sustain regulatory attack.