For tax professionals representing clients in criminal tax matters or forensic accounting engagements, the distinction between "tax loss" for Sentencing Guidelines purposes and "restitution" under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) is a critical technical concept. A recent opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, United States v. Eckerd (Case No. 2:22-cr-00237(1)), provides a stark illustration of how these two figures can diverge significantly without violating a plea agreement. The court’s January 2026 ruling emphasizes that a stipulated loss cap for calculating a prison sentence does not shield a defendant—particularly in conspiracy cases—from joint and several liability for the full scope of victim restitution.

Factual Background and the Plea Agreement

In December 2022, John K. Eckerd, Jr. was charged with financial crimes stemming from a Ponzi scheme involving tire sales. The indictment alleged that Eckerd and co-conspirators "committed wire fraud and evaded paying income tax". Eckerd entered a guilty plea on November 4, 2025.

The controversy centered on the specific terms regarding loss amounts within the Plea Agreement. The parties stipulated to loss figures strictly "purposes of calculating the guidelines". For the wire fraud count (Count 1), the agreement applied U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(K), stating the offense level should be increased by "20 levels on loss that is more than $9.5 million but less than or equal to $25 million". For the tax count (Count 3), the agreement stipulated a Base Offense Level of 20 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(a)(1) "based on a tax loss of $1,028,454". The agreement acknowledged that Eckerd joined the conspiracy "[a]t some point" as a business partner.

Crucially, regarding restitution, the agreement separately noted that Eckerd "agree[d] to pay restitution in an amount to be determined at sentencing" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

Following the plea, the Government provided the Probation Officer with a chart detailing total victim losses exceeding $61 million.

The Plaintiff’s Request for Relief

Eckerd filed a "Motion for Specific Enforcement of the Plea Agreement" and a "Motion to Continue Sentencing," seeking reassignment to a new judge. Eckerd argued that by presenting a $61 million loss figure to Probation, the Government breached the Plea Agreement, which capped the loss at $25 million.

Eckerd contended that the Government "impugn[ed]" him "with responsibility for all losses arising from the Ponzi scheme or conspiracy" despite the stipulation. He argued that the loss figure agreed upon ($25 million) "drives the advisory sentencing guidelines calculation" and logically "determines the amount of restitution owed". Eckerd asserted that the presentation of the $61 million figure "logically and predictably undermined the plea agreement".

The Court’s Analysis of Applicable Law

Judge Algenon L. Marbley began the analysis by noting that while plea agreements are interpreted using "traditional principles of contract law" and ambiguities are "construed against the Government," the "plain language" of the agreement governs.

The court’s legal analysis focused on the bifurcation of "loss" definitions in federal sentencing. The court explained that "’Loss’ for the purposes of a criminal defendant’s sentencing guidelines range and ’loss’ for the purposes of restitution are distinct and different concepts".

Sentencing Guidelines: These have a "punitive purpose," instructing courts to increase an offense level "based on the amount of the ’loss’ when determining the defendant’s guidelines range".
Restitution: Under the MVRA, courts must order defendants to "make restitution to" any identifiable victim who suffered a pecuniary loss.

Citing United States v. Agrawal, 97 F.4th 421 (6th Cir. 2024), the court emphasized that calculations for these two types of losses "need not match". Furthermore, referencing United States v. Dadyan, 76 F.4th 955 (9th Cir. 2023), the court noted that the resulting numbers may even "expressly contradict" one another.

In the context of conspiracy, the court highlighted that defendants may be held "jointly and severally liable for all victims harmed by the scheme". Consequently, restitution is not limited to the specific conduct of the individual defendant but may encompass the "loss caused by an entire conspiracy," even if the sentencing loss reflects "only conduct closely related to the defendant".

Application of Law to the Facts

The court rejected Eckerd’s argument that the Government attempted an "impermissible end run" around the agreement. Judge Marbley found that Eckerd "conflates loss and restitution".

The court relied on the specific textual limitations within the Plea Agreement. The $25 million cap was explicitly agreed to "[f]or purposes of calculating the guidelines". In contrast, the restitution clause was an "additional statutory obligation" where Eckerd agreed to pay an amount "to be determined at sentencing" without a corresponding numerical cap.

The court found "nothing inconsistent with the Government arguing that Eckerd should be punished as though he was responsible for $25 million in losses, while also seeking to ensure that his victims collectively receive the $61 million in restitution that they are owed".

The court also dismantled Eckerd’s reliance on case law such as United States v. Franco-Lopez and United States v. Boatner. In those cases, the Government contradicted specific factual stipulations (such as a defendant’s role as an "organizer" or the specific quantity of drugs). Here, however, the court ruled there is "no necessary inconsistency with different restitution and sentencing guidelines losses". The court similarly distinguished Paroline v. United States, noting that Paroline did not involve a conspiracy; in a conspiracy, a defendant "can be held liable for restitution for all the victims of the conspiracy even if some victims’ direct losses are not attributable to him".

Conclusions and Ruling

The court concluded that "[n]o categorical rule limits restitution to the sentencing guidelines loss". Because the Plea Agreement lacked any specific provision limiting restitution, the Government was "not bound by a sentencing guideline loss stipulation in calculating restitution".

The court ultimately held that while Eckerd’s punishment (Guidelines sentence) might reflect his limited role or willingness to plead, "his punishment does not bear on the victims’ losses". Consequently, the Motion for Specific Enforcement was denied, and the Motion to Continue Sentencing was denied as moot. The sentencing hearing remained set for February 6, 2026, with the understanding that the court may order restitution inconsistent with the $25 million loss stipulation used for incarceration purposes.

Prepared with assistance from NotebookLM.