Three false trust returns sought more than $1.1 million from the IRS, but one issued refund ultimately produced a restitution order of $410,117.44. A Maryland woman has been sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison after pleading guilty to theft of government funds. The case shows how a claimed refund amount, an issued payment and the final court-ordered loss can all differ.
The returns used purported trusts to seek large refunds
Kendra Scarborough filed three returns between December 2019 and March 2020 in the names of trusts she controlled. Prosecutors said the trusts were not entitled to the refunds. Together, the filings sought more than $1.1 million from the Treasury.
The IRS issued approximately $412,000 on one of the returns. The other claimed amounts were not paid. That gap is why the attempted-refund total should not be described as the government’s actual loss.
Free retirement updates: Want plain-English help keeping more of your money in retirement? The free Retirement Shield newsletter covers the benefits, deadlines, and money mistakes that cost retirees, a couple times a week. Subscribe free.
The judgment uses an exact restitution figure
The Justice Department’s September 9 announcement says U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman ordered Scarborough to pay $410,117.44 in restitution to the IRS. The court also ordered forfeiture of refund proceeds remaining in her bank account.
Restitution and forfeiture address different parts of the financial result. Restitution recognizes loss to the IRS. Forfeiture transfers proceeds linked to the offense to the government, even when the property is still sitting in an account rather than having been spent.
The sentence followed a guilty plea to one count of theft of government funds. That final status separates the case from an indictment, where allegations remain unproven. The prison term of 12 months and one day also has a legal significance beyond rounding to “one year,” because federal release rules can treat sentences longer than one year differently.
Refund fraud relies on information systems built for ordinary filing
The tax system processes millions of refund claims, many supported by withholding or refundable credits. Fraudsters exploit that volume by submitting returns that manufacture income, entities, withholding or credits. The IRS must balance screening with issuing legitimate refunds without excessive delay.
The IRS’s tax-fraud alerts describe current schemes and the role of Criminal Investigation. In Scarborough’s case, IRS Criminal Investigation conducted the inquiry and the Justice Department’s Tax Section prosecuted it.
Identity-theft refund fraud is one common form, but the government’s release does not describe this case as stolen-identity filing. It involved purported trusts controlled by the defendant. Adding an identity-theft label would change the mechanism supported by the public record.
A criminal restitution order is not a delayed taxpayer refund
The payment ordered here runs from the defendant to the IRS. It is not a pot of money available to individual filers and does not affect the status of ordinary 2026 refunds. The word “refund” describes the false payment obtained from the government, not a new claim opportunity.
Taxpayers checking a legitimate refund use the IRS’s Where’s My Refund? system. That service relies on the return’s filing status and expected amount; it has no connection to restitution collection in a criminal case.
The trusts in the prosecution also should not be confused with ordinary estate-planning trusts. The government’s release calls them purported trusts controlled by the defendant and says the returns claimed money to which they were not entitled. It does not announce a new rule affecting legitimate trust returns or their filing obligations.
The difference between $412,000 issued and $410,117.44 ordered as restitution can reflect the loss calculation accepted in court. Reporting the rounded refund as if it were the judgment would erase that precision. Conversely, describing all $1.1 million sought as paid would exaggerate the government’s loss by counting unsuccessful claims.
Remaining proceeds in a bank account can be forfeited because they are traceable to the offense. If forfeited money is later applied toward restitution, federal procedures prevent double recovery, but the press release does not provide a final collection accounting. The order establishes liability while later enforcement determines the money actually recovered.
The case also illustrates why a refund appearing in an account is not proof that the return was lawful. Automated issuance can precede later audit or criminal review. The legal question turns on entitlement and the truth of the return, not solely on whether the IRS initially processed the payment.
The sentencing date is the current news event. The false returns were filed years earlier, but the September 2026 judgment newly fixed prison, restitution and forfeiture consequences in the public record.
The Justice Department release was still current when checked September 15, 2026. It supports the more-than-$1.1 million sought, approximately $412,000 issued and exact $410,117.44 restitution amount. Those figures produce a clear accounting spine: most attempted money never left the Treasury, the issued payment created the actual loss, and the sentence now requires repayment through the federal judgment.
Public Benefits Outside the Tax Judgment
A fraud sentence returns money to the IRS, while household assistance follows unrelated benefit rules. State drug-cost help, free weatherization and SSI after 65 each operate through their own state or federal process.
The guide covers 11 programs across 69 pages and includes the 2026 income limits and a 50-state phone directory.
See the program comparisons in The Benefits Checklist.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed by a human editor.
