Trump Found Guilty on 34 Criminal Accounting Charges – No CPA Expert Witness Present. What Went Wrong?

I raised a brow at Cohen’s testimony — that Trump stole from his own company and ordered an accountant to cook the books, effectively hiding the fraud he supposedly committed from himself. Brilliant.

When lips deceive, numbers don’t leave.

This article aims to demonstrate how the court delivered 34 accounting-related criminal charges guilty without substantiating a single accounting offense.

One of the greatest privileges of being a U.S. citizen is that the government must prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” before imprisoning someone.

Regardless of how the public views a person, they have the right to a fair trial, free from emotional bias.

However, when this principle is compromised, it subjects all citizens to an unreliable justice system that may not uphold these standards consistently.

If you had the choice, would you prefer a society where the justice system prosecutes crimes, or one where it simply prosecutes people?

Summary

Legal experts were appalled that, in this two-step crime conviction, the second step was missing: no underlying offenses were clearly identified. As an accountant, I was equally shocked that even the first step was overlooked: the falsification of business records was never established.

The subject matter of a case like this involving financial fraud should be the accounting records. In this instance, the core issue—fraudulent accounting records—only becomes a criminal offense if it’s proven that these records were intended to conceal underlying crimes, based on New York Penal Law § 175.10.

This isn’t just a legal matter; it should be more of an accounting issue, shouldn’t it? In a case of such historical significance, wouldn’t you need CPAs familiar with auditing standards to rigorously establish the very first step: falsification of business records?

Not only was accounting fraud never identified, but the existence of an accounting misstatement was also never proven. The Court failed to substantiate that the Non-Disclosure Agreement (commonly referred to as “hush money”) was actually tied to the 34 business records: the journal entries, invoices, and check payments. Instead, the Court appeared to rely solely on Cohen’s allegations and accepted the existence of misstatements without proper verification.

As an accountant, I found the Court’s disregard for due process alarming. Equally troubling was Trump’s defense lawyer’s failure to recognize the critical need for an independent CPA as an expert witness—a catastrophic oversight. Any competent CPA would have demanded documentation from the plaintiff to substantiate that the transactions in question were indeed personal expenditures, such as the “hush money.”

If there is no substantiated accounting misstatement, where is the fraud? And if there is no fraud, where is the case?

However, in a surprising twist during cross-examination, a different fraud surfaced: Michael Cohen admitted that the previously mentioned $30,000 “bonus” he received was actually a “self-help bonus”—money he stole from the Trump Organization, not a payment authorized by Trump. Despite lying under oath in front of the judge and jury, the trial proceeded without addressing Cohen’s perjury. The Court continued to rely on his testimony until the end, ultimately delivering its historical verdict based solely on Cohen’s statements.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume Michael Cohen’s allegations were in good faith: that he believed Donald Trump directed his accountant to record Cohen’s invoices as “legal expenses” to cover up a personal expenditure—although we can see the email correspondence clearly showing the accounting instructions were made by the Controller, Jefferey McConney and the CFO Allen Weisselberg, and Trump was excluded from the conversation—reimbursement for a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) payment Cohen made on Trump’s behalf to a porn star in order to prevent a scandal during the election campaign. The central issue, however, is that Trump allegedly used business funds, not his personal funds, to reimburse Cohen. While personal funds can be used without limits for campaign-related expenses (including NDA payments), using business funds would exceed statutory contribution limits and technically constitute a federal crime. Under New York State law, this could meet the “concealing a crime” requirement, thus turning the accounting misrepresentation into a criminal offense.

Yet, similar situations—such as Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance violations—have occurred among candidates frequently, sometimes resulting in a fine, but had never resulted in criminal prosecution. So, the real question remains: was this truly a case of criminal accounting fraud, or simply a politically charged interpretation?

It’s important to note that this case was tried in a Manhattan court, which somehow extended its local jurisdiction over campaign finance violation, what would typically be considered a federal crime, for the purpose of applying New York State law in the process. Clear enough?

But let’s set all that aside and, for the sake of argument, assume Cohen’s testimony is fully credible.

Every fraudster needs a compelling incentive to justify the risk of committing fraud.

What would Trump’s incentive have been that was so compelling it passed his own risk-benefit analysis? In this case, funding an NDA payment to a porn star likely didn’t involve much personal conviction. The real focus should be on the economic reward. Based on our calculations, the maximum possible benefit from this would be a tax saving of $209,160. The key question is: how compelling would this amount have felt to Trump?

In 2017, Trump’s net worth was $3.1 billion, according to Forbes. The potential net benefit from this alleged fraudulent accounting record represents just 0.0067% of his net worth.

To generate this 0.0067% return, we are to believe Trump decided to steal $360,000 from his own company, betray his children, and instruct his accountant to falsify a journal entry to cover up a personal expense. Furthermore, he would have chosen to use this stolen money to reimburse Michael Cohen, all while facing unknown but significant legal repercussions—all for a 0.0067% return. Quite the “deal of art.”

Perhaps Trump was truly out of legal ways to make cash at that point. Someone might want to remind him, “Mr. President, there was no need to decline that 2017 POTUS salary of $400,000!”

Or maybe, Trump gets a strange thrill from stealing from himself, teaching accountants how to manipulate the books, and using the money he “stole” to pay off porn stars. Perhaps it’s just a wild hobby. Who knows?

34 Accounting Criminal Charges found “Guilty”.

******************

Background

In the Trump hush money trial, legal experts, including Ryan Goodman, a law professor, and Andrew Weissmann, a former Department of Justice official, emphasized a key element of New York Penal Law § 175.10: falsifying business records becomes a felony when it is done with the “intent to defraud” and includes an intent to commit or conceal another crime. They pointed out that this could apply if Trump falsified records to obscure potential violations of campaign finance or election laws tied to the hush money payments.

For the prosecution, the crux of the case rested on proving the “falsified business record” charge, which was necessary to uncover any underlying criminal activities or fraudulent intent. Importantly, all 34 counts focused not on the alleged underlying crimes but rather on falsified accounting records and potential tax evasion.

Surprisingly, the court did not call upon an independent CPA as an expert witness. This absence left a critical gap in the trial, as the jury was deprived of professional insights into the intricacies of accounting practices and tax laws, which could have influenced their understanding of the charges. Expert testimony from a qualified CPA would have been crucial to help jurors navigate these complex financial issues and assess the credibility of key witnesses.

The lack of an accountant’s perspective also limited the public’s ability to evaluate the case fully. Given that this marks the first felony conviction of a U.S. presidential candidate, it is essential for voters to have a complete understanding of the facts, including an accurate portrayal of the accounting matters at the heart of the case.

Examination of the Alleged Falsified Accounting Records

Let’s delve into the world of accounting fraud—surprisingly fascinating! Falsifying business records involves deliberately misrepresenting or misstating accounting or tax records, often to secure some financial benefit. To prove accounting fraud, two tests must be met: the “misrepresentation” test and the “intent” test.

Here’s a breakdown of the initial accusation of “falsified business records” that resulted in 34 felony counts:

• 11 counts related to invoices from Michael Cohen

• 11 counts related to checks signed by Trump or issued using business funds to repay Cohen

• 12 counts related to accounting entries in Trump’s books documenting these reimbursements.

In essence, the 34 counts all relate to installment payments made through 12 checks, most has a check amount at $35,000, totaling $390,000 paid to Michael Cohen. Of these, 11 checks were signed by Trump. The payments allegedly covered:

• $130,000 – reimbursement to Cohen for the payment to Stormy Daniels as part of a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

• $50,000 – reimbursement to Cohen for payments made to a tech company, Red Finch Solutions LLC, on Trump’s behalf.

• $180,000 – comprised of $150,000 in hush money paid to another woman in August 2015 and $30,000 paid to a Trump Tower doorman.

• $30,000 – initially claimed by Cohen to be a “bonus,” but during cross-examination, Cohen admitted he had actually stolen this amount from the Trump Organization as “self-help” compensation for what he considered an unfair bonus reduction. Fun fact: Theft losses sustained by a company, if not recoverable, can be tax-deductible under § 165(e) of the Internal Revenue Code!

To an accounting layperson, it might seem obvious that Trump played a role in this alleged fraud: “Of course he’s involved—he signed off on 11 of the checks himself!”

But is that truly the case?

$35,000 check with a date of 06/19/2017 issues to Michael Cohen’s invoice dated 04/17/2017, as “Retainer”, signed off by Trump.

The Window Cracked Open by a $30,000 Theft: How Michael Cohen Exploited the Internal Controls of the Trump Organization

Michael Cohen’s confession to stealing $30,000 from the Trump Organization, which he misleadingly referred to as a “self-help” bonus, dealt a significant blow to his credibility. His admission of theft and lying under oath opened a crucial opportunity for a CPA to examine the Trump Organization’s internal controls over financial reporting, and evaluate Trump’s awareness of the transactions, Cohen’s access to the organization’s accounting system, his state of mind during the theft, and even his potential motive to cooperate with the prosecution.

To properly assess Cohen’s claims, the court should have immediately called Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg and controller Jeffrey McConney as key witnesses—especially after Cohen committed perjury in front of the jury and the judge. Their testimony could have clarified the nature of the invoices, Trump’s role in approving the accounting treatment, and whether these invoices were genuinely tied to the NDA payments. Did Trump really defraud his own company to embezzle funds? The court should have examined all engagement letters and retainer agreements between Cohen and the Trump Organization to determine if these invoices had legitimate business justifications. Without substantiating the link between the invoices and the alleged hush money payments, what basis was there for the case?

The $30,000 theft highlights weak internal controls within the Trump Organization. If Trump signed off on 11 checks, approving a significant portion of these transactions, it raises questions about his oversight responsibilities. Beyond the $30,000 misappropriation, we still lack reliable evidence to clarify the rest of the payments and records.

Interestingly, the disconfirming evidence seems quite compelling and could potentially exonerate Trump from direct involvement. If Trump had been personally overseeing these payments, it’s highly likely he would have noticed the glaring $30,000 discrepancy in Cohen’s reimbursements. This oversight suggests that Trump may not have been as hands-on in the accounting details as alleged, casting further doubt on the claim that he intentionally falsified records for personal gain.

An experienced CPA would quickly question Cohen’s claim that Trump falsified accounting records to steal from his own company. Asset misappropriation of this kind is typically committed by lower-level employees, like Accounts Payable clerks, rather than by business owners. When owners or management falsify records, it is usually driven by motives such as inflating revenues and profitability to boost stock values, increase performance-based bonuses, or secure better financing terms. While not an absolute rule, it seems highly unusual and unnecessary for Trump to steal from his own business. If he needed to pull cash from the company for personal use, he could simply direct his accountant to categorize the expenses as “owner draw.”

So, what would Trump’s incentive be to classify personal expenditures as “legal expenses”? From a tax perspective, the motivation could involve potential tax evasion, which will be discussed in a later section of this article.

If Cohen was truthful about certain details, it is more plausible that the false business records were created with the involvement of CFO Allen Weisselberg and controller Jefferey McConney. They may have colluded with Cohen to conceal the theft by categorizing it as a “legal expense,” thereby preventing Trump from becoming suspicious. Note the following sample of an installment payment process, shows the initiation, review, approve, and journal entry, was conducted among the controller Jefferey McConney, CFO Allen Weisselberg, and bookkeeper Deborah Tarasoff.

Trump was not copied, and was only briefly mentioned by Weisselberg “…as per agreement with Don and Eric.” The devil lies in the details. Noticing how vague the email title is: “Re: $$”?

Normally, an email subject would be served as an event identifier for future review, when a question raises somewhere down the road, for efficient search. This email title was intentionally made as vague as possible, displaying an intent that only the three people involved in the conversation would know what this is about.

The invoice issuance request was initiated by Jefferey McConney, and Michael Cohen thanked for the reminder. At this point, I think it is quite clear that why the key witnesses, Jefferey McConney and Allen Weisselberg were not called as key witnesses. They won’t help Michael Cohen’s case, but they might make the case a colluded asset misappropriation and completely exonerate Trump.

Jeffrey S. McConney reminded Michael Cohen to send an invoice, with an email titled vaguely as “Re: $$,” which was forwarded to Allen Weisselberg for review and approval. He instructed bookkeeper Deborah Tarasoff to make the journal entry, alleging it was “per agreement with Don and Eric.” Despite their involvement, McConney and Weisselberg were not called as key witnesses. Why?

The saga of the $30,000 theft not only casts serious doubt on Cohen’s credibility but also raises the possibility of collusion with others who had access to the Trump Organization’s accounting system. It’s a financial mystery straight out of a detective novel, with each twist revealing deeper layers of intrigue and deception.

Despite Cohen’s perjury, the court astonishingly failed to summon crucial witnesses like Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney, instead continuing to rely solely on Cohen’s testimony to drive the case forward. This decision raises serious concerns about the thoroughness and fairness of the trial, leaving key questions unanswered.

Proper Accounting Treatment of Retainer Payments to Lawyers

Now, let’s have a bit of fun with accounting (yes, it’s possible!).

To verify Michael Cohen’s testimony, the Court needs to obtain the transaction evidence underlying these accounting records. It is possible that the retainer invoices were legitimately based on his engagement terms and retainer agreement with the Trump Organization. Interestingly, there’s no documentation from the court showing any effort to request Cohen’s engagement letters or agreements to rule out the possibility that these invoices reflect valid legal transactions.

Even more surprising, no attempt was made to gather evidence connecting these invoices to the alleged NDA payments!

Can we exonerate Trump now? Not quite yet—let’s keep digging. Even the invoices are not fraudulent, the accounting treatment can still be wrong.

Let’s assume for a moment that the invoices were legitimate “legal retainers.” We still have to ask: Was the classification of these payments as “legal expenses” correct? And, more importantly, is there any indication of potential tax evasion?

The answer, as accountants love to say, is: “It depends.”

If the Trump Organization uses accrual-based accounting, the retainer payment should have been capitalized as a “prepaid asset” rather than immediately expensed. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), expenses must be matched to the period in which the related services are provided. For tax purposes, only the portion of legal services already rendered would be deductible. So, if the company uses accrual accounting and expensed the full retainer upfront, it may have overstated its deductions, potentially raising tax compliance issues.

But what if the Trump Organization is a cash-basis taxpayer, keeping its books on a cash basis for tax filings? In this scenario, retainer fees are generally deductible as “ordinary and necessary” business expenses in the year they are paid, according to Internal Revenue Code § 162. However, if the retainer is intended to cover future services related to asset acquisition or company reorganization, it must be capitalized. Trump’s 2017 tax returns show that his businesses use various accounting methods—accrual, cash, and other specified methods.

In conclusion, regardless of the accounting method used, there could be an overstated tax deduction. Let’s assume for a moment we find this part guilty of a factual accounting mistake, based solely on Michael Cohen’s unreliable testimony. Now, we must move on to the next critical test: was it intentional?

The court must prove that the misstatement was not simply an honest error, but a deliberate act with intent to defraud. A CPA with expertise in fraud assessment should have explained to the jury how to assess whether Trump’s actions were part of an intentional scheme to defraud his own company. This analysis is crucial in determining the true nature of the alleged fraud.

The Fraud Triangle: A CPA’s Take on Fraud Risk Assessment

Imagine a CPA expert witness stepping up to the stand, guiding the jury through the key elements of fraud risk using the “Fraud Triangle.” Here’s how the three sides of this intriguing triangle come together:

1. Pressure/Incentive: This is the “why” behind fraud—the pressures pushing someone toward it. It could be mounting debt, an expensive habit, or the need to hit financial targets. Personal or financial strains can create the motivation to commit fraud.

2. Opportunity/Access: This is the “how” of fraud. Weak internal controls, poor oversight, or access to sensitive financial information provide the chance to act on fraudulent intentions. Without sufficient checks in place, even a small gap in oversight can become a wide-open door.

3. Rationalization/Justification: This is the mental gymnastics fraudsters perform to convince themselves their actions are acceptable. They might think they’re underpaid or believe that their actions are justified due to loyalty or perceived unfair treatment. It’s the “it’s okay because…” mindset that helps them justify unethical behavior.

With the Fraud Triangle, what might seem like a complex world of fraud becomes a little clearer—perhaps even a bit like playing detective.

Fraud Risk Assessment of Cohen’s Theft

Now, let’s examine how Michael Cohen’s actions fit neatly into the “Fraud Triangle,” making this a classic case of fraud:

1. Pressure/Incentive: Cohen faced significant financial strain. After using a home equity loan to pay the hush money, he later encountered financial devastation. By 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight felony counts, including over $1.3 million in unpaid taxes from 2012 to 2016, bank fraud, and campaign finance violations. His legal and financial troubles, combined with disbarment and a 36-month prison sentence, created a powerful incentive to seek additional income by any means necessary.

2. Opportunity/Access: Cohen had ample opportunity due to his access to Trump’s finances and his ability to manipulate financial records. His close relationship with the Trump Organization’s accounting and finance personnel gave him the means to commit fraud. This was further confirmed during cross-examination when Cohen admitted that the $30,000 “bonus” he had initially claimed was actually money he stole from the Trump Organization, framing it as “self-help” compensation. His access to financial records and lack of oversight created a perfect environment for fraud.

3. Rationalization/Justification: Cohen’s own words reveal his motive and justification for theft. Feeling betrayed and sidelined after Trump became president, Cohen likely rationalized his actions as compensation for his loyalty and sacrifices. Trump’s refusal to pardon Cohen or reward him with a key position added to Cohen’s sense of resentment, leading him to justify the theft as deserved payback for his perceived mistreatment.

In this case, Cohen’s actions align perfectly with the Fraud Triangle, illustrating the classic elements of pressure, opportunity, and rationalization that drive fraudulent behavior.

On Monday, Trump attorney Todd Blanche returned to that testimony, zeroing in on Cohen's admission that he took some of the money set aside for RedFinch and pocketed it himself. The firm ultimately accepted a payment of just $20,000, with Cohen pocketing the difference. "So you stole from the Trump Organization?” Blanche asked. “Yes, sir,” Cohen replied. "I was angered because of the reduction in the bonus, and so I just felt it was almost like self-help," said Cohen. "I wasn’t going to let [Trump] have the benefit [of] this way as well. I wasn’t going to correct the conversation I was having with Allen about it. I had not only protected him to the best that I could, but I had also laid out money to Red Finch a year and a half earlier and again $130,000 to have my bonus cut by two-thirds was very upsetting to say the least." Michael Cohen, May 20, 2024

Fraud Risk Assessment of Trump’s Falsifying Accounting Records

Next, let’s explore whether Trump had the motive to commit accounting fraud using the Fraud Triangle framework:

1. Pressure and Incentive: Even billionaires can experience financial pressures. Trump, already president at the time, could have easily reimbursed Cohen out of his own pocket, avoiding any potential issues. According to 11 CFR § 110.10 and 52 U.S.C. § 30101(26), a candidate can contribute an unlimited amount of personal funds to their campaign. Alternatively, Trump could have used company funds by directing his accountant to categorize it as an “owner draw” instead of a “legal expense.” Both approaches would have kept things above board. However, overstating business expenses to reduce taxable income presents a clear incentive to commit fraud, as it could result in significant tax savings.

2. Opportunity/Access: Trump had considerable control over his company’s finances. Even with internal controls in place, individuals in high managerial positions or those with access to financial records can override these controls. Trump, his CFO, controller, and bookkeeper all had the opportunity to falsify records if they chose to do so. This level of access presents a clear opportunity for financial manipulation.

3. Rationalization and Justification: The final piece of the triangle involves rationalization. Fraudsters often justify their actions through personal beliefs, past experiences, or the perceived benefits outweighing the risks. For Trump, rationalizing the falsification of business records may have come down to weighing the tax benefits against the legal risks. As the owner, the direct benefit would be a reduction in taxable income, which could result in substantial tax savings.

The first two sides of the triangle—pressure/incentive and opportunity—certainly exist in Trump’s case. Now, the question remains: How strong was the rationalization in Trump’s mind when performing his own risk-benefit analysis?

Imagine this scenario: You work at a bank, and you have access to cash. One day, your Wednesday night bowling buddy desperately asks you to “borrow” $2,000 from the bank and cover it with a fake record, promising to pay it back after his next payroll. In exchange, he’ll even take you to the Golden Corral buffet. Would you take that risk? In your common sense, is the friendship or even the allure of a buffet worth the potential consequences of fraud?

Similarly, Trump would have had to weigh his own motivations and the potential financial gain from tax savings against the considerable risks of legal repercussions. Would the tax deduction generate enough savings for a billionaire like Trump to justify the risk of violating tax laws? Could the incentive of this tax saving be compelling enough for Trump to take such a significant legal gamble?

Calculating the Maximum Potential Tax Savings

Now, let’s quantify Trump’s potential tax benefits and assess whether this “reward” could be compelling enough to tempt him into questionable accounting practices or even stealing from his own company. Keep in mind that the Trump Organization is made up of closely held partnerships and S-corporations, largely owned by Trump and his family members, directly or indirectly. For any potential wrongdoing to make sense, the financial gain would need to be significant enough to justify the idea of stealing from his children and himself.

Excluding the $30,000 that Cohen admitted to stealing, the maximum possible understatement of taxable income would be $360,000 from the remaining $390,000 in total check payments. This reduction in taxable income would flow directly to Trump’s personal tax return since his business entities are pass-through entities, meaning they don’t pay corporate tax themselves but instead pass income and deductions to the owners.

Maximum Potential Tax Savings:

• Federal Tax Savings: At the highest personal tax rate of 39.6% (before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), plus an additional 3.8% net investment income tax, the potential federal tax savings would be 43.4% of $360,000, or $156,240.

• State and Local Tax Savings: In New York, the combined state and city tax rates were 10.8% and 3.9%, respectively, resulting in a total tax rate of 14.7%. This would yield state and local tax savings of $52,920.

Total Potential Tax Savings:

The maximum possible tax savings from this deduction would be $209,160.

While this might seem like a significant amount of money for most people, we need to consider what this means for Trump specifically. In 2017, Trump’s net worth was estimated at $3.1 billion according to Forbes. The $209,160 in tax savings represents a 0.0067% increase in his net worth—a minuscule amount for someone of Trump’s wealth.

To put this into perspective, a basic interest-bearing account generates a higher rate of return. Or, if he were concerned about cash flow, he could have just accepted his $400,000 presidential salary in 2017, which he famously declined.

Given these numbers, it’s hard to see how a tax saving of this size would be a compelling enough incentive for someone like Trump to risk legal trouble.

Can you imagine any scenario where Trump would steal $360,000 from his own company, while forgoing a $400,000 presidential salary, and then instruct his accountant to make a fraudulent journal entry to cover up a personal expenditure—effectively encouraging his employees to steal too? What would he gain from falsifying business records just to reimburse hush money payments to Michael Cohen? Would that be worth the risk of facing nearly 100 years in prison?

Conclusions in Question Format

Now, with all these newly gained insights, we must ask ourselves: Do the 34 counts of accounting crimes truly hold up under scrutiny?

• Was the falsification of business records appropriately proven?

• If a CPA with the appropriate expertise had been admitted to the Manhattan Court, would we now be grappling with the decision of whether to vote for a convicted felon?

• Why was there no professional accounting expert involved in such a historical case?

• How could Michael Cohen, after lying under oath about the $30,000 theft from the Trump Organization, continue to serve as the primary source of testimony relied upon until the convictions were delivered?

• Did Trump receive a fair trial, and were his constitutional rights and due process respected throughout the proceedings?

This trial isn’t just about legal and accounting technicalities; it’s about the integrity of our leaders, the transparency we demand, the public’s trust in the justice system, and respect for the legal profession.

As voters, we must scrutinize the facts, question what we hear from the media, and consider whether justice was truly served.

Are we willing to be treated similarly if we unintentionally cross paths with those connected to public officials?

Do we have the resources to defend our constitutional rights?

Should we continue placing our trust in those who lead us?

Let’s reflect on these revelations and their broader implications as we move forward in this election year.

Author Background (updated):

Ruby Duan Kamm, CPA, is the managing member of TaxesTech CPA Services LLC, a firm she co-founded with her husband, John Kamm, in April 2020 in Englewood, Colorado. Ruby has an extensive educational background, holding a Master of Accountancy from the University of Denver, a Master of International Relations with a focus on cultural anthropology from Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan, and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics from Shanxi University of Finance and Economics in China. She is fluent in Mandarin, Japanese, and English.

Before founding TaxesTech, Ruby gained valuable experience during her five years as an auditor at KPMG. She is also an expert witness and adjunct faculty member, teaching Federal Income Tax at the Daniels College of Business, University of Denver.

TaxesTech specializes in providing comprehensive accounting and tax advisory services to small businesses, with Ruby’s expertise spanning accounting, auditing, and federal income taxation.