medical solutions, benefits,Lance Wallach, Lance Wallach Expert Witness, administrative services
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Beat the IRS: Reflections on Booth
Beat the IRS: Reflections on Booth: By Koresko During the last several years, practitioners interested in the future of multiple-employer VEBAs and other welfare benefit pl...
The United States Department of Justice en Español contempt fine. Pet. 11. Their presumed interest in prevent ing the Department from using the documents presumably prevents this case from being moot. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13 (1992).
2 Petitioners rely on two district court decisions in the Sidney Charles Markets litigation for their assertion that neither the Regional Employers Assurance Leagues nor the Delaware Valley League was an ERISA plan, Pet. 13 & n.16, but the district court properly con cluded that the Department was not bound by those decisions because it was not a party to that litigation and the cases were decided on mo tions to dismiss. Pet. App. 345a n.2.
3 Petitioners incorrectly assert (Pet. 25) that the Department's conduct shows "a clear statement of intent" to disclose information to the Internal Revenue Service that the agency could not legitimately obtain. The Department made no such statement; it simply refused to agree to a court order prohibiting the Department from sharing infor mation with other federal agencies. Pet. App. 94a-95a; see Koresko, 2006 WL 463495, at *2 (finding "no evidence" that the Secretary intends to give the documents to another governmental agency).
4 Petitioners' inaccurately assert (Pet. 27) that this case creates a split in the courts of appeals on how a subpoenaed party demonstrates that the government sought a subpoena in bad faith. Contrary to their assertion, United States v. Church of Scientology, 933 F.2d 1074 (1st Cir. 1991) (Breyer, J.), does not hold that "some evidence" of bad faith is sufficient to trigger a right to cross-examine the government. The court specifically declined to address whether the agency in that case acted for an improper purpose. Id. at 1079. Petitioners also mistakenly rely on United States v. Church of Scientology, 520 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1975). In that case, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the government's suggestion, in response to a request for discovery against the govern ment, to allow the person resisting an IRS summons to examine the agent who issued the summons at a hearing. Id. at 824. The Ninth Cir cuit's decision is consistent with the decision of the court below because in this case, petitioners sought the production of documents as well as testimony from the Department's investigator, Pet. App. 344a, the Department refused to provide that information, ibid., the district court found no need for a hearing, id. at 346a, and the court of appeals found no abuse of the district court's discretion. Id. at 7a.
Search Submit SUBSCRIBE SIGN IN Embattled Montco Attorney Disbarred by Pa. Supreme Court Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer September 14, 2015 | 0 Comments SHARE PRINT REPRINTS
A Montgomery County lawyer who has faced charges on multiple fronts has been disbarred in relation to a number of alleged professional conduct violations, in a chain of events stemming from the sale of a home. John J. Koresko V was disbarred by state Supreme Court per curiam order Sept. 4. In its opinion filed June 1, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommended a five-year suspension of Koresko's license to practice law. "Respondent's actions constitute serious misconduct," said the opinion, signed by board vice chair Jane G. Penny. "While there is no per se discipline in Pennsylvania, prior similar cases are instructive and are suggestive of a lengthy sanction when, as here, an attorney's pattern of persistent misrepresen
The United States Department of Justice
ReplyDeleteen Español
contempt fine. Pet. 11. Their presumed interest in prevent ing the Department from using the documents presumably prevents this case from being moot. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 13 (1992).
2 Petitioners rely on two district court decisions in the Sidney Charles Markets litigation for their assertion that neither the Regional Employers Assurance Leagues nor the Delaware Valley League was an ERISA plan, Pet. 13 & n.16, but the district court properly con cluded that the Department was not bound by those decisions because it was not a party to that litigation and the cases were decided on mo tions to dismiss. Pet. App. 345a n.2.
3 Petitioners incorrectly assert (Pet. 25) that the Department's conduct shows "a clear statement of intent" to disclose information to the Internal Revenue Service that the agency could not legitimately obtain. The Department made no such statement; it simply refused to agree to a court order prohibiting the Department from sharing infor mation with other federal agencies. Pet. App. 94a-95a; see Koresko, 2006 WL 463495, at *2 (finding "no evidence" that the Secretary intends to give the documents to another governmental agency).
4 Petitioners' inaccurately assert (Pet. 27) that this case creates a split in the courts of appeals on how a subpoenaed party demonstrates that the government sought a subpoena in bad faith. Contrary to their assertion, United States v. Church of Scientology, 933 F.2d 1074 (1st Cir. 1991) (Breyer, J.), does not hold that "some evidence" of bad faith is sufficient to trigger a right to cross-examine the government. The court specifically declined to address whether the agency in that case acted for an improper purpose. Id. at 1079. Petitioners also mistakenly rely on United States v. Church of Scientology, 520 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1975). In that case, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the government's suggestion, in response to a request for discovery against the govern ment, to allow the person resisting an IRS summons to examine the agent who issued the summons at a hearing. Id. at 824. The Ninth Cir cuit's decision is consistent with the decision of the court below because in this case, petitioners sought the production of documents as well as testimony from the Department's investigator, Pet. App. 344a, the Department refused to provide that information, ibid., the district court found no need for a hearing, id. at 346a, and the court of appeals found no abuse of the district court's discretion. Id. at 7a.
Type:
Petition Stage Response
Briefs:
2005-1501.resp.pdf
SECTIONS
ReplyDeleteLegal Intelligencer
Search
Submit
SUBSCRIBE
SIGN IN
Embattled Montco Attorney Disbarred by Pa. Supreme Court
Lizzy McLellan, The Legal Intelligencer
September 14, 2015 | 0 Comments
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS
A Montgomery County lawyer who has faced charges on multiple fronts has been disbarred in relation to a number of alleged professional conduct violations, in a chain of events stemming from the sale of a home.
John J. Koresko V was disbarred by state Supreme Court per curiam order Sept. 4. In its opinion filed June 1, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommended a five-year suspension of Koresko's license to practice law.
"Respondent's actions constitute serious misconduct," said the opinion, signed by board vice chair Jane G. Penny. "While there is no per se discipline in Pennsylvania, prior similar cases are instructive and are suggestive of a lengthy sanction when, as here, an attorney's pattern of persistent misrepresen