Thursday, May 25, 2006

IRS Ordered To Compensate Taxpayers In Tax Shelter Case

by Mike Godfrey, Tax-News.com, Washington
25 May 2006

The Internal Revenue Service has been ordered by a US Tax Court Judge to repay millions of dollars in taxes, fines and interest to a group of taxpayers, after officials from the agency were found to have effectively bribed witnesses to win a tax shelter case.

The case centred on the so-called Kersting tax shelter, named after Honolulu businessman Henry Kersting, which allowed airline pilots and their families to purchase stock in one of Kersting's companies. In exchange, the pilots received promissory notes, on which they would have to pay interest, but which allowed them to claim interest deductions on their tax returns.

In the early 1980s, the IRS ruled that the Kersting tax shelter was illegal and began pursuing a number of investors who had used the scheme. Many of these eventually settled with the IRS.

However, according to Colorado Attorney Declan J. O’Donnell, who represented 100 of the 500 taxpayers who settled with the IRS, three witnesses were effectively bribed with cash, pre-paid expenses, tax settlements below par, and ten years of added tax benefits so that they would testify against six pilots.

In an opinion delivered earlier this month, the United States Tax Court stated that all of the settled cases in the Kersting Tax Shelter program should receive 64% of their monies back as a sanction.

It is perhaps the first time that such a judgment has been made against the federal tax collector, certainly for such a substantial amount of money.

"Fraud on the court is rare and has only occurred a few times in our country’s history," Mr O'Donnell observed in a statement.

"This particular ruling is the only time the IRS has ever been adjudicated with a money judgment against them. All others were either sanctioned or the cases were retried," he added.

Mr. O’Donnell believes this penalty judgment against the IRS is unique, perhaps the only large money judgment against any national taxing authority ever. His clients and the settled group will receive an estimated $56 million from the IRS in due course.

The IRS has the right to appeal the decision, but Mr O'Donnell stated that such an eventuality is remote given that interest is continuing to accrue, and that the agency cannot appeal against liability in the case.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Sheriff Kolender Denies Rumors of Appointing Bill Gore After Election

Sheriff William Kolender denies rumors relating to allegations in which many have asserted that he is planning on running for reelection only to shortly thereafter have his Assistant Undersheriff Bill Gore appointed as the new Sheriff by the Board of Supervisors. Many argue that this usurp the election process.

Insiders say that Kolender is battling Alzheimer's, and is not medically fit to serve another term.Other rumors include the fact that David Bejarano left his position with the Federal Marshal's Office intending on seeking election as San Diego Sheriff. He was to work as the Chief of Investigations under Bonnie Dumanis with the San Diego District Attorney's Office. Insiders say that Dumanis told Bejarano the offer was only on the table if he agreed not to run against Kolender.

Many political strategists do not feel that Bill Gore, former San Diego Director of the FBI, could win an election against Bejarano. Insiders insist that Kolender will step down after about six months of his reelection and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors are said to accept Kolender's recommendation of appointing Gore. This does appear to undermine the election process. To read U.T. articles, click Kolender and Bejarano.

Police Chief William Lansdowne Continues to Mislead and Fail San Diego

More and more leaks from within the San Diego Police Department indicate a chief who is more concerned with cover up then protecting the community. In addition to his infamous underreporting of crime, insiders recently have exposed some more of his corrupt practices.

Sgt. Martha Sainz attacked a fellow police officer last year. To read a Union Tribune article exposing the incident, click here. Another recent article from the Union Tribune stated that Sgt. Sainz would be terminated from employment. For details click here.

Now insiders from SDPD have broken the code of silence and revealed that Lansdowne ordered Sgt. Sainz to be reinstated, continue as a Sergeant, and receive back pay for her lost time. Insiders insist this is yet another glimpse at the corrupt and deceptive practices of William Lansdowne. Some insiders went so far as to accuse Lansdowne of ordering departmental staff not to appear to the civil service hearing which would automatically cause all charges against Sainz to be dismissed thus she would be eligible to be reinstated back to her position as a police sergeant. Others allege the department botched the investigation which forced the department to retract their position.

Officers are said to be outraged! They cannot believe the actions of Lansdowne and are furious. Initially, Sainz was only taken out of the field and assigned to another position pending investigation after the story was leaked to the San Diego Union Tribune. Additionally, the victim of the assault from Sainz is now on the list to become a detective which may have pressured her to rethink per position on seeking prosecution against Sainz. San Diego Police Officers are becoming so outraged at Lansdowne's failed leadership, that they are now hosting websites exposing his failures. Here is a list of these websites:

San Diego Police Union Begins Airing Controversial Commercial

The San Diego Police Officers Association has recently began airing a commercial which has drawn much criticism. This is just another sign of the mounting frustration within the police rank and file due to Chief William Lansdowne's failed leadership. Lansdowne will continue to blame the city budget, however, that is just a small portion of what the San Diego Police Officers have been tolerating.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

San Diego Lawyer Sues After Man Denied a Mother's Day Bag

From time to time, I will write about what I consider to be abusive or ridiculous lawsuits. In one recent article, I wrote about a lawyer who sued the internet dating site eHarmony because they would not let him register until his divorce was final. I've also written articles about attorneys file predatory lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But one of my personal favorites is a lawsuit filed by a man who didn't a gift bag at baseball game on Mother's Day last year.

According to a story on Channel 10 News, San Diego attorney Alfred Rava filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim for sex and age discrimination. Rava's client was apparently upset when he was denied a tote bag on Mother's Day at an Angels game in 2005. The suit was brought under a California law called The Unruh Act which prevents businesses engaging in arbitrary discrimination.

Attorney Rava has an interesting history of filing other ridiculous lawsuits. He has previously sued a number of local bars that sponsor a "ladies night", alleging that the practice constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. He has also apparently sued the San Diego Padres and the Los Angeles Dodgers over gift promotions. My hope is that someday, the California State Bar will catch up with Mr. Rava in the same way it has done with other lawyers who have a history of filing abusive or ridiculous lawsuits in California.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.