United States of America v. Hardy
- Kimba Wood
- 1:05-cv-03847
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In United States v. Kevin Hardy, Judge Wood found Kevin Hardy in civil contempt for preparing tax returns despite a permanent injunction and ordered disclosures and fee disgorgement.
Kevin Hardy, the United States, and Hardy’s tax-preparation customers and financial records covered by the disclosure orders.
What happened
United States of America v. Kevin Hardy concerned the Government’s request to hold Kevin Hardy in civil contempt for violating a 2007 court order. That order permanently barred Hardy from preparing federal income tax returns or operating a tax-preparation business.
The Government presented customer statements, tax-filing records, payment records, and Hardy’s own hearing testimony. The court found clear and convincing evidence that Hardy continued preparing returns and did not make a reasonable effort to follow the order. Hardy argued that the evidence did not connect him to another person named Devone Hardy, but the court found that connection unnecessary because the evidence directly showed Hardy’s violations.
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the Government’s motion and found Hardy in civil contempt. The court ordered Hardy to provide customer, return, bank, payment, and other financial records; identify and pay over fees collected under the relevant preparer identification number; and respond to the Government’s forthcoming request for investigative fees and costs. The court deferred deciding the exact amount of any additional disgorgement and other specific sanctions.
The detailed version
- United States of America v. Hardy · No. 1:05-cv-03847
- Kimba Wood
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
The Government filed a motion on July 24, 2024, asking the court to hold Kevin Hardy in civil contempt for violating an April 16, 2007 Stipulation and Order. That order permanently prohibited Hardy from acting as a federal income-tax return preparer, including operating his federal tax-preparation business. The order retained jurisdiction over disputes concerning compliance.
The Government alleged that Hardy continued preparing federal income-tax returns after the injunction. It sought disgorgement of fees earned from that work, disclosure of Hardy’s tax-preparation customers and financial records, and reimbursement of fees and costs incurred in investigating and bringing the contempt motion.
Civil Contempt Standard
The court explained that civil contempt for violating a court order requires proof that: (1) the order was clear and unambiguous; (2) the violation was shown by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the alleged violator did not diligently attempt to comply in a reasonable manner. The Government did not have to prove that Hardy acted willfully.
Court’s Analysis
The court found the 2007 order clear and unambiguous. Its language specifically barred Hardy from acting as an income-tax return preparer or operating a federal income-tax return preparation business. The court rejected Hardy’s argument that the order was limited to his earlier use of a fabricated slavery-reparations tax credit. The court also noted that Hardy had agreed to and signed the order while represented by counsel.
The court found clear and convincing evidence that Hardy violated the order. Government investigators identified thousands of tax returns filed under a preparer tax identification number ending in -9531, with the preparer listed as “Hardy” or “Devon Hardy.” Customers told the Government that Kevin Hardy prepared their returns after the 2007 order, communicated through an email address associated with him, sent cover letters connected to K & T Associates, LLC, and accepted payment through a Venmo account using his name. The court stated that Hardy’s relationship, if any, to Devone Hardy did not matter because the evidence independently showed that Kevin Hardy continued operating the tax-preparation business.
Hardy’s testimony at the September 10, 2025 evidentiary hearing also established that he operated an income-tax preparation business in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, accepted payment for tax-preparation services, used the relevant post-office box, and used a telephone number linked to tax returns. The court found that Hardy had not diligently attempted to comply because he continued the prohibited conduct for more than 16 years.
Ruling and Sanctions
The court granted the Government’s motion and found Hardy in civil contempt for violating the April 2007 Stipulation and Order. By November 10, 2025, Hardy was ordered to provide a list of his tax-preparation customers and returns prepared since April 16, 2007, including the fee charged for each return. He also had to provide bank statements, Venmo transaction records, and other relevant financial records involving Hardy or K & T Associates, LLC, and identify and disgorge fees collected for returns filed under the preparer tax identification number ending in -9531.
The court deferred ruling on a specific remedy, including the exact amount of disgorgement, until the parties stated that they were ready to proceed. The Government was directed to file a motion for the fees and costs it incurred in investigating and bringing the contempt motion. The court warned that failure to comply with the new order or the prior injunction could result in further sanctions. The Clerk was directed to close the pending motion.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.