Christopher Dowtin obtained Treasury checks meant for two businesses after false changes to their IRS account information. I follow the forms, the returned and reissued checks, and the brokerage-office encounter that led to a three-year sentence.
Show Notes:
Company Number One wanted an overpayment applied to a later tax year. The filed IRS-CI affidavit says it returned a paper refund check with that request. Instead of applying the credit as requested, the IRS issued another check after processing false changes to the company’s business-account information. That check, for $32,495,888.58, reached Christopher Dowtin. A second company’s refund check for $26,156.50 also reached him.
Dowtin brought both checks to a Morgan Stanley office in Ohio and attempted to place them into a trust-named brokerage account. He supplied documents purporting to support his authority over the money. Morgan Stanley contacted the Secret Service and IRS-CI, and agents seized the checks. Company representatives told investigators he was not authorized to act for them.
After a bench trial, Dowtin was convicted of theft of government money and wire fraud. The court imposed 36 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release. The filed judgment lists no restitution; the government’s sentencing memorandum says intervention prevented actual financial loss. The district-court docket also records a notice of appeal.
I explain what Form 8822-B does, why authority over a business’s IRS account matters, and what a business or tax professional should check when refund instructions and IRS correspondence stop matching.
Key Takeaways
- Confirm the address and responsible party recorded for each business IRS account.
- Reconcile refund checks and carryforward requests against account records, especially when a check arrives despite instructions to apply an overpayment forward.
- Verify an unfamiliar Form 2848 or purported fiduciary appointment with the business before treating it as authorized.
- Preserve notices, forms, account history, and communications if a change appears unauthorized.
- Treat missing expected IRS correspondence as a possible business identity-theft warning sign.
- Use the IRS’s business identity-theft reporting guidance when its stated criteria fit the facts.
Resources Mentioned
Filed IRS-CI complaint and agent affidavit: The investigated sequence, documents, company interviews, and checks. Allegations in the affidavit should be distinguished from the later verdict.
Indictment: The charged theft and wire-fraud theory, including Forms 56, 2848, and 8822-B.
United States v. Dowtin, No. 3:25-cr-00032, verdict: The bench-trial findings of guilt on the six counts that proceeded to trial.
United States v. Dowtin, pretrial order, Feb. 6, 2026: The court’s treatment of proposed sovereign-citizen and mistake-of-law arguments, while preserving an opportunity to contest intent on a genuine factual basis.
Government sentencing memorandum and judgment: The government’s account of prevented loss and the court’s actual sentence and monetary orders.
IRS-CI sentencing account: Agency account of the disposition.
Form 8822-B and instructions: Business address and responsible-party changes, signatory requirements, and representative authority.
18 U.S.C. § 641: Theft or conversion of United States money or property.
18 U.S.C. § 1343: Wire fraud.
26 U.S.C. § 6109: Taxpayer identifying numbers. Dowtin’s convictions were under Title 18, not this IRC section.
IRS business identity-theft guidance and business reporting guidance: Warning signs and reporting options.
Related Steven Ware case: A separate corporate-refund impersonation comparison.