DOCSLIB.ORG

A. Unauthorized Practice of Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: ETHICS ISSUES Thomas E. Spahn McGuireWoods LLP * These analyses primarily rely on the ABA Model Rules, which represent a voluntary organization's suggested guidelines. Every state has adopted its own unique set of mandatory ethics rules, and you should check those when seeking ethics guidance. For ease of use, these analyses and citations use the generic term "legal ethics opinion" rather than the formal categories of the ABA's and state authorities' opinions -- including advisory, formal and informal. ______________________ © 2017 McGuireWoods LLP. McGuireWoods LLP grants you the right to download and/or reproduce this work for personal, educational use within your organization only, provided that you give proper attribution and do not alter the work. You are not permitted to re-publish or re-distribute the work to third parties without permission. Please email Thomas E. Spahn ([email protected]) with any questions or requests. 88951932_1 Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) TABLE OF CONTENTS Subject Page Introduction General Issues A Unauthorized Practice of Law………………………………………………. 1 B Multijurisdictional Practice………………………………………………….. 31 C Competence and Confidentiality…………………………………………… 63 D Working with Third Parties………………………………………………….. 90 E Limiting Liability………………………………………………………………. 125 F AI Material Ownership………………………………………………………... 134 Transactional Issues G Substantive Mistakes………………………………………………………… 197 H Scrivener's Errors…………………………………………………………….. 212 Litigation Issues I Ghostwriting…………………………………………….…………………....... 224 J Discovery…………………………………………………….…………………. 240 K Privilege Review………………….……………………………………………. 242 L Jury Selection………………………………………………………………….. 248 M Judges' Use of Artificial Intelligence………………………………………. 251 N Adverse Law……………………………………………………………………. 262 i 88951932_1 Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) Introduction As with other technological advances, artificial intelligence (AI) will dramatically affect law practice in coming years. Among other things, AI implicates several ethics issues with which our profession will have to wrestle. One basic question involves AI's essential nature. Is it the practice of law? If so, non-lawyers relying on AI to advise third parties may be committing the criminal unauthorized practice of law. And lawyers insufficiently involved in such a process may be guilty of assisting in such unauthorized practice of law. Lawyers using AI as a tool to assist in their practice must address multijurisdictional practice issues. Where is a lawyer practicing law when she relies on an AI vendor in another state? Not surprisingly, lawyers relying on AI must fulfill their duties of competence to understand the new technology. And they must take reasonable steps to protect their clients' confidential information. Lawyers working with AI vendors must satisfy all the ethics rules governing such relationships with outside assistance. As with outsourcing, these duties include adequate due diligence of such vendors' confidentiality protections; checking for conflicts of interest when retaining the vendors; adequately supervising AI vendors; and determining how to bill the clients for their services. Lawyers using AI technology might be tempted to limit their practice or their liability, which implicates ethics principles. ii 88951932_1 Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) Using AI generates enormous amounts of data, results, and other material. The ABA and state bars have dealt with the ownership of such material -- in situations where clients have paid their lawyers, and where they have not paid their lawyers. Transactional lawyers relying on AI face several questions. Must they advise their client of their malpractice when using a new process? May they take advantage of counterparties' substantive mistakes? Similarly, may they take advantage of counterparties' scriveners' errors that may result from reliance on AI? Litigators face different issues. Courts and bars disagree about lawyers' "ghostwriting" of pleadings for purportedly pro se litigants. Lawyers providing AI assistance to such litigants may face that principle. Relying on AI for discovery may implicate ethics opinions involving deception. AI will probably play an important role in privilege reviews. Courts have addressed whether that process even involves the practice of law, while bars have addressed the necessity of lawyers' involvement in that process. AI's use in jury selection implicates ethics issues. Judges' use of AI raises judicial ethics issues. And AI's uncovering of adverse law may trigger a dilemma about the necessity of disclosing such adverse law. iii 88951932_1 Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) A. Unauthorized Practice of Law An obvious initial question implicated by artificial intelligence is whether such a process constitutes the "practice of law" for unauthorized practice of law purposes. Knowing whether use of artificial intelligence to provide legal advice amounts to the unauthorized practice of law underlies the UPL assessment of (1) non-lawyers using AI without any lawyers' involvement, and (2) lawyers working with non-lawyers (not under their supervision) in those non-lawyers' use of AI. Defining the Practice of Law Although it may be difficult for self-absorbed lawyers to accept, both the phrase "unauthorized practice of law" and the concept are hazy and uncertain at best -- yet can form the basis for severe penalties. The Restatement explains this strange dichotomy of uncertain definitions yet great stakes. To some, the expression "unauthorized practice of law" by a non-lawyer is incongruous, because it can be taken to imply that non-lawyers may engage in some aspects of law practice, but not others. The phrase has gained near-universal usage in the courts, ethics-committee opinions, and scholarly writing, and it is well understood not to imply any necessary area of permissible practice by a non-lawyer. Moreover, a non-lawyer undoubtedly may engage in some limited forms of law practice, such as self-representation in a civil or criminal matter . It thus would not be accurate for the black letter to state flatly that a non-lawyer may not engage in law practice. A non-lawyer who impermissibly engages in the practice of law may be subject to several sanctions, including injunction, contempt, and conviction for crime. Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 4 cmt. a (2000). 1 88951932_1 Artificial Intelligence: Ethics Issues McGuireWoods LLP T. Spahn (6/2/17) The Restatement also offers an understated explanation of the great difficulties courts and other state institutions have had in actually defining the practice of law. The simple truth is that it can be nearly impossible to precisely define the practice of law. The Restatement recognizes this awkward reality. Courts have occasionally attempted to define unauthorized practice by general formulations, none of which seems adequately to describe the line between permissible and impermissible non-lawyer services, such as a definition based on application of difficult areas of the law to specific situations. Many courts refuse to propound comprehensive definitions, preferring to deal with situations on their individual facts. Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 4 reporter's note cmt. c (2000). As one court similarly explained, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law. Sudzus v. Dep't of Employment Sec., 914 N.E.2d 208, 215 (Ill. App. Ct.), appeal denied, 920 N.E.2d 1082 (Ill. 2009) (unpublished opinion). Other courts have expressed similar sentiments.1 1 In re Dissolving Comm'n on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 242 P.3d 1282, 1283 (Mont. 2010) (dissolving the bar's Commission on the unauthorized practice of law, and explaining that the Attorney General will now handle any UPL matters; "We conclude that the array of persons and institutions that provide legal or legally-related services to members of the public are, literally, too numerous to list. To name but a very few, by way of example, these include bankers, realtors, vehicle sales and finance persons, mortgage companies, stock brokers, financial planners, insurance agents, health care providers, and accountants. Within the broad definition of § 37-61-201, MCA, it may be that some of these professions and businesses 'practice law' in one fashion or another in, for example, filling out legal forms, giving advice about 'what this or that means' in a form of contract, in estate and retirement planning, in obtaining informed consent, in buying and selling property, and in giving tax advice. Federal and state administrative agencies regulate many of these professions and businesses via rules and regulations; federal and state consumer protection laws and other statutory schemes may be implicated in the activities of these professions and fields; and individuals and non-human entities may be liable in actions in law and in equity for their conduct. Furthermore, what constitutes the practice of law, not to mention what practice is authorized and what is unauthorized is, by no means, clearly defined. Finally, we are also mindful of the movement towards nationalization and globalization of the practice of law, and with the action taken by federal authorities against state
Recommended publications
  • Response Due November 7, 2016

    Response Due November 7, 2016

    No. 16-______ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TERRY CHRISTENSEN, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SETH M. HUFSTEDLER DEANNE E. MAYNARD DAN MARMALEFSKY Counsel of Record BENJAMIN J. FOX BRIAN R. MATSUI MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP BRYAN J. LEITCH 707 Wilshire Boulevard LENA H. HUGHES Los Angeles, CA 90017 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 887-8740 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Terry Christensen OCTOBER 5, 2016 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal de- fendants a unanimous verdict by an impartial jury. The lower courts are divided as to how to protect this right when one (or more) of the jurors requests dismis- sal of a juror during deliberations. The D.C. Circuit, First Circuit, and Second Circuit all have held that a dismissal request must be denied if there is “any pos- sibility” that the complaints about a juror are related to that juror’s views of the merits
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    Case: 10-50464, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 166-1, Page 1 of 127 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50531 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-8 TERRY CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50570 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-1 ANTHONY PELLICANO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50115 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-7 MARK ARNESON, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 10-50464, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 166-1, Page 2 of 127 2 UNITED STATES V. CHRISTENSEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50125 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-2 RAYFORD EARL TURNER, AKA Seal B, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50128 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-6 ABNER NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50159 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-3 KEVIN KACHIKIAN, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 10-50464, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 166-1, Page 3 of 127 UNITED STATES V. CHRISTENSEN 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50434 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-2 RAYFORD EARL TURNER, AKA Seal B, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50462 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-7 MARK ARNESON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
  • Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit)

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE 2019 REVISIONS TO PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT DISTRICT OF MAINE INTERNET SITE EDITION Updated 6/24/19 by Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Preface to 1998 Edition Citations to Other Pattern Instructions How to Use the Pattern Instructions Part 1—Preliminary Instructions 1.01 Duties of the Jury 1.02 Nature of Indictment; Presumption of Innocence 1.03 Previous Trial 1.04 Preliminary Statement of Elements of Crime 1.05 Evidence; Objections; Rulings; Bench Conferences 1.06 Credibility of Witnesses 1.07 Conduct of the Jury 1.08 Notetaking 1.09 Outline of the Trial Part 2—Instructions Concerning Certain Matters of Evidence 2.01 Stipulations 2.02 Judicial Notice 2.03 Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statement 2.04 Impeachment of Witness Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.05 Impeachment of Defendant's Testimony by Prior Conviction 2.06 Evidence of Defendant's Prior Similar Acts 2.07 Weighing the Testimony of an Expert Witness 2.08 Caution as to Cooperating Witness/Accomplice/Paid Informant 2.09 Use of Tapes and Transcripts 2.10 Flight After Accusation/Consciousness of Guilt 2.11 Statements by Defendant 2.12 Missing Witness 2.13 Spoliation 2.14 Witness (Not the Defendant) Who Takes the Fifth Amendment 2.15 Definition of “Knowingly” 2.16 “Willful Blindness” As a Way of Satisfying “Knowingly” 2.17 Definition of “Willfully” 2.18 Taking a View 2.19 Character Evidence 2.20 Testimony by Defendant
  • Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court

    Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court

    Information for Persons Representing Themselves Before the U.S. Tax Court United States Tax Court Washington, D.C. August 2010 INTRODUCTION This guide provides information, but not legal advice, for individuals who represent themselves before the Tax Court. It answers some of taxpayers' most frequent questions. It is a step-by-step explanation of the process of: Filing a petition to begin your Tax Court case Things that occur before trial Things that occur during trial Things that occur after trial Definition of terms (Glossary) For more detailed information, consult the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, available on the Court's Web site (www.ustaxcourt.gov). A copy of the Tax Court Rules (Rules) may be obtained for $20.00 by writing to the United States Tax Court, 400 Second Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20217, and enclosing a check or money order for that amount payable to the "Clerk, United States Tax Court." Please do not send cash. ADDRESS ALL MAIL TO: United States Tax Court 400 Second Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20217 CONTENTS ABOUT THE TAX COURT 1 What is the United States Tax Court? 1 What are the Tax Court's Hours of Operation? 1 STARTING A CASE 2 How do I start a case in the Tax Court? 2 Who can file a petition with the Tax Court? 2 Is there anyone who can help me file a petition and/or help me in my case against the IRS? 2 How can I find a tax clinic? 3 If I want to represent myself or if I don't qualify for representation by a tax clinic, can I represent myself? 3 What should I do if I don't speak and/or understand English very well? 3 Are there any circumstances where the Court will help pay for the cost of an interpreter at trial? 3 If I need an interpreter at trial what should I do? 4 I thought I came to an agreement with the IRS, but the IRS sent me notice of deficiency or a notice of determination stating that I have a right to file a petition with the Tax Court.
  • Mazzei; Angelo L

    Mazzei; Angelo L

    No. 18-72451 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _______________________________ CELIA MAZZEI; ANGELO L. MAZZEI; MARY E. MAZZEI, Petitioners-Appellants v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee _______________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT _______________________________ BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE _______________________________ RICHARD E. ZUCKERMAN Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General TRAVIS A. GREAVES Deputy Assistant Attorney General GILBERT S. ROTHENBERG (202) 514-3361 TERESA E. MCLAUGHLIN (202) 514-4342 JUDITH A. HAGLEY (202) 514-8126 Attorneys Tax Division Department of Justice Post Office Box 502 Washington, D.C. 20044 -i- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of contents .......................................................................................... i Table of authorities .................................................................................. iii Glossary ...................................................................................................viii Jurisdictional statement ............................................................................ 1 Statement of the issue ................................................................................ 1 Applicable statutes and regulations .......................................................... 2 Statement of the case ................................................................................. 2 A. Procedural overview ................................................................
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

    Case: 09-50128, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 252-1, Page 1 of 127 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50531 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-8 TERRY CHRISTENSEN, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-50570 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-1 ANTHONY PELLICANO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50115 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-7 MARK ARNESON, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 09-50128, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 252-1, Page 2 of 127 2 UNITED STATES V. CHRISTENSEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50125 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-2 RAYFORD EARL TURNER, AKA Seal B, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50128 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-6 ABNER NICHERIE, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50159 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-3 KEVIN KACHIKIAN, Defendant-Appellant. Case: 09-50128, 07/08/2016, ID: 10043319, DktEntry: 252-1, Page 3 of 127 UNITED STATES V. CHRISTENSEN 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50434 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-2 RAYFORD EARL TURNER, AKA Seal B, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50462 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:05-cr-01046- DSF-7 MARK ARNESON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
  • 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE

    2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE

    National Taxpayer Advocate 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE viewed Last www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/2013AnnualReport December 31, 2013 02/25/2019 on viewed Last National Taxpayer Advocate 2013 Annual Report to Congress02/25/2019 on VOLUME ONE viewed Last www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/2013AnnualReport 02/25/2019 on viewed Last ii This page intentionally left blank. At their core, taxpayer rights are human rights. They are about our inherent humanity. Particularly when an organization is large, as is the IRS, and has power, as does the IRS, these rights serve as a bulwark against the organization’s tendency to arrange things in ways that are convenient for itself, but actually dehumanize us. Taxpayer rights, then, help ensure that taxpayers are treated in a humane manner. Nina E. Olson Last viewed onLaurence 02/25/2019 Neal Woodworth Memorial Lecture May 9, 2013 02/25/2019 on viewed Last iv This page intentionally left blank. Contents Contents PREFACE: A Path to Strengthening Tax Administration and Improving Voluntary Tax Compliance ...............................................................ix THE MOST SERIOUS PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY TAXPAYERS The Most Significant Issues Facing Taxpayers and the IRS Today Introduction .......................................................................1 1. TAXPAYER RIGHTS: The IRS Should Adopt a Taxpayer Bill of Rights as a Framework for Effective Tax Administration ...................................................5 2. IRS BUDGET: The IRS Desperately Needs More Funding to Serve Taxpayers and Increase Voluntary Compliance...................................................20 3. EMPLOYEE TRAINING: The Drastic Reduction in IRS Employee Training Impacts the Ability of the IRS to Assist Taxpayers and Fulfill its Mission ..........................40 4. TAXPAYER RIGHTS: Insufficient Education and Training About Taxpayer Rights Impairs IRS Employees’ Ability to Assist Taxpayers and Protect Their Rights ................51 5.
  • T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER

    T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER

    T.C. Memo. 2021-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ALEXANDER BERNARD WATHEN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 4310-18. Filed August 11, 2021. Alexander Bernard Wathen, pro se. Courtney M. Hill and Gabriel Okoye (student), for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION PUGH, Judge: In a notice of deficiency dated February 4, 2015, respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties:1 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Served 08/11/21 - 2 - [*2] Addition to tax Penalty Year Deficiency sec. 6651(a)(1) sec. 6662(a) 2010 $40,091 $10,023 $8,018 2011 29,615 7,404 5,923 The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner’s prior bankruptcy proceeding precludes respondent from pursuing the above deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties;2 (2) whether petitioner failed to report gross receipts of $59,726 and $15,833 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C, Profit or Loss From Business; (3) whether petitioner failed to report partnership income of $1,951 for 2010 on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss;3 (4) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct travel expenses of $8,732 and $21,980 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C; (5) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct office expenses of $46,717 and $53,420 for 2010 and 2011, respectively, on Schedules C; (6) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under section 2 At trial petitioner moved for summary judgment that res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judicial estoppel bar respondent from asserting these deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties.
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

    Case: 08-3690 Document: 169 Filed: 09/28/2012 Pages: 199 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 08-3690, 08-3759, 08-4076, 08-4246, 08-4320, 09-1864 & 09-2174 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAEL A. VALLONE, WILLIAM S. COVER, MICHAEL T. DOWD, ROBERT W. HOPPER, TIMOTHY S. DUNN, and EDWARD BARTOLI, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 04 CR 372—Charles R. Norgle, Sr., Judge. ARGUED MAY 3, 2011—DECIDED SEPTEMBER 28, 2012 Case: 08-3690 Document: 169 Filed: 09/28/2012 Pages: 199 2 Nos. 08-3690, 08-3759, 08-4076, 08-4246, 08-4320, 09-1864 & 09-2174 Before ROVNER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and YOUNG, District Judge. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. At the conclusion of an eleven- week trial, a jury convicted defendants Michael A. Vallone, William S. Cover, Michael T. Dowd, Robert W. Hopper, Timothy S. Dunn, and Edward Bartoli of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the functions of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and to commit offenses against the United States, along with related fraud and tax offenses. They were sen- tenced to prison terms ranging from 120 to 223 months. The defendants appeal their convictions and sentences. We affirm. I. This is the latest in a series of cases arising out of abusive trusts promoted by The Aegis Company (“Aegis”) and its sister company, Heritage Assurance Group (“Heri- tage”), both based in Palos Hills, Illinois. See United States v.
  • Canadian Tax Journal Revue Fiscale Canadienne

    Canadian Tax Journal Revue Fiscale Canadienne

    2020 ■ VOLUME 68, No 4 CANADIAN TAX JOURNAL REVUE FISCALE CANADIENNE PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES Interest Relief on Income Tax Debts: Canada Versus the United States Michael H. Lubetsky Tax Literacy: A Canadian Perspective Anthony Pham, Antoine Genest-Grégoire, Luc Godbout, and Jean-Herman Guay POLICY FORUM Crisis, Cleanup, and the Prospect of Long-Term Fiscal Change Shirley Tillotson Editors’ Introduction—The GST/HST Responsibilities of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms Alan Macnaughton and Daniel Sandler The GST/HST Obligations of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms— Jurisprudence and Policy Nicholas Shatalow Carrying On About Carrying On Business: A Response to “The GST/HST Obligations of Non-Resident E-Commerce Firms” Zvi Halpern-Shavim Much Ado About Doing Not Much: Some Reflections on the Jurisdiction To Tax Business Transactions Malcolm Gammie FEATURES Finances of the Nation: Provincial Debt Sustainability in Canada: Demographics, Federal Transfers, and COVID-19 Trevor Tombe Current Cases: (FCA) Iberville Developments Limited v. Canada; (FCA) Landbouwbedrijf Backx BV v. Canada; (BCCA) Collins Family Trust v. Canada (Attorney General) Kirsten Kjellander, Ryan L. Morris, John Sorensen, Ehsan Wahidie, and Anita Yuk Selected US Tax Developments: New Proposed Regulations Under the Section 1061 Carried Interest Rules Peter A. Glicklich and Gregg M. Benson Current Tax Reading Robin Boadway and Kim Brooks ■ CANADIAN TAX JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD/ COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION DE LA REVUE FISCALE CANADIENNE ■ Editors/Rédacteurs en chef Alan Macnaughton Daniel Sandler University of Waterloo EY Law llp Kevin Milligan (on leave) Frances Woolley University of British Columbia Carleton University ■ Practitioners and Academics/Fiscalistes et Universitaires Richard M. Bird University of Toronto Allison Christians McGill University David G.
  • Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C

    Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C

    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Tax Journal Akron Law Journals 2005 Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final? Stephen C. Gara Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akrontaxjournal Part of the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Gara, Stephen C. (2005) "Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final Not Really Final?," Akron Tax Journal: Vol. 20 , Article 2. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akrontaxjournal/vol20/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Tax Journal by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Gara: Challenging the Finality of Tax Court Judgments: When Is Final No CHALLENGING THE FINALITY OF TAX COURT JUDGMENTS: WHEN Is FINAL NOT REALLY FINAL? Stephen C. Gara* I. INTRODUCTION The United States Tax Court serves a vital function within the federal tax system: the adjudication of tax controversies between the taxpayer and the government.' The court shares this function with the U.S. district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, all of which possess broader subject matter jurisdiction.2 However, only the Tax Court provides a pre-payment forum for taxpayers seeking tax claim adjudication.
  • Lombardo in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    Lombardo in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    Case: 1:02-cr-01050 Document #: 1574-1 Filed: 05/31/14 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:20799 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ( ( VS. ( NO: 2-cr-1050 ( JOSEPH LOMBARDO ( MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2255 AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT COMES NOW, JOSEPH LOMBARDO, your Petitioner in the instant case, by the undersigned attorney, who respectfully files this Memorandum with points of law in support of his Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, and in support thereof, states as follows: STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, has jurisdiction over all offenses against the criminal laws of the United States which take place in that district, under 18 U.S.C. Section 3231, 21 U.S.C. Section 41(a)(1)(b)(1)(A), 21 U.S.C. Section 846, and 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. 1 Case: 1:02-cr-01050 Document #: 1574-1 Filed: 05/31/14 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:20800 STATEMENT OF THE CASE On April 25, 2005, fourteen individuals, including Petitioner Joseph Lombardo, were charged in a First Superseding Indictment. Two arrest warrants were thereafter issued for Petitioner, the second of which identified him as a fugitive (after he had written the district court a letter). Petitioner was arrested on January 13, 2006. Petitioner and his co-defendants were charged in a Third Superseding Indictment on March 8, 2007.