Entrepreneurial couple left with $15MM tax bill due to accounting malpractice. Shields Legal forces accountant’s insurance carrier to pay out policy limits to fund couple’s tax appeal to SCOTUS.
Introduction
Problem
The couple was engaged in a protracted and costly uphill legal contest with a highly motivated IRS. During the course of the IRS litigation, the couple learned that in addition to the incorrect interpretation of the international tax treaty, the accountants had committed multiple grievous acts of accounting malpractice, including submitting returns beyond the six-year statute of limitations, failing to prepare and submit required forms, and giving incorrect advice on how to properly complete other required forms. Every return and amended return prepared by the accountants was audited, with negative results. The negligence and incompetence of the accountants had exposed the couple to $15MM in delinquent taxes and penalties. Meanwhile, the couple’s life savings were being quickly depleted in tax court. The couple turned to Shields Legal for a way to get past their IRS nightmare.
Solution
Shields Legal determined that the best way to get past the IRS nightmare was to go through the accountants. Shields pursued a parallel accounting malpractice action against the accountants as a means to obtain funding for the ongoing tax appeal from a settlement with the accountants. Shields’ litigation plan included (1) gathering all of the relevant documents, records, and work papers upon which the malpractice claims were based; (2) engaging the right testifying expert who could plainly and concisely set out the accounting malpractice and the amount of damages that were directly caused by the accountants’ negligence and gross negligence; (3) securing the sworn deposition testimony of the accountants admitting to their negligence and incompetence; and (4) presenting a compelling Stower’s settlement demand which would force the insurance carrier to pay out the seven-figure policy limits to avoid liability for an excess judgment at trial.
Conclusion