How Long Can the IRS Audit, With Rob Wood, Tax Attorney, San Francisco, California

The IRS has three years to file an audit and generally speaking, one doesn't know if the audit is random or the result of a red flag.  When involved in a case, Rob Wood, a tax attorney in San Francisco, California with Wood, LLP, always asks from the auditor what it was that caused the audit.

There are things that people can do, such as 1099 matching and math errors to avoid audits but a lot of it is unknown, says Wood.  Wood notes that the normal 3 year statute is only a "normal rule," and there are all sorts of exceptions.  He recommends anytime you get a tax notice, to take it to a professional for advice.

For more information on the article Wood has written in Forbes magazine on this, click here.  Robert Wood is a tax attorney with Wood, LLP in San Francisco, California and spoke with The Tax Law Channel, an affiliate of The Legal Broadcast Network.  The Legal Broadcast Network is a featured network of the Sequence Media Group.

Actor Steven Seagal Eyes Russian Citizenship, With Rob Wood, Tax Attorney, San Francisco, California

Actor Steven Seagal, fan of Russian President Putin and while practicing martial arts in Russia, says he's considering Russian citizenship.

Noted tax attorney, Rob Wood, of Wood, LLP in San Francisco, California, says he doesn't think it's for tax reasons, however the jury's still out on what he's going to do.

For more information on the matter, click here for an article in Forbes Magazine that Wood has written. Robert Wood is a tax attorney with Wood, LLP in San Francisco, California and spoke with The Tax Law Channel, an affiliate of The Legal Broadcast Network.  The Legal Broadcast Network is a featured network of the Sequence Media Group.

Enter a URL to resolve.

Florida Supreme Court Rules Caps on Malpractice Damages Unconstitutional, With Attorney Richard Levin, Levin, Riback Law Group

The insurance industry has argued for decades that malpractice damage caps will reduce medical malpractice premiums.  However, a recent Florida Supreme Court decision, citing different decisions in Texas and Oklahoma, has actually found caps don't reduce premiums for physicians and that more importantly from a legal stand point, that they are unconstitutional. In the case, " Estate of Michelle Evette McCall, et al., vs United States of America", Florida Supreme Court No. SC11-1148, published March 13, 2014, we get a look at the State Supreme Court of Florida's detail examination of how liability caps came to be put into law, the failed thinking behind the process and the constitutional arguments behind their decision. Copy of decision available here. 

On this edition of Speaking of Justice we are joined by noted trial lawyer Richard Levin of Chicago, who states that caps on malpractice claims arbitrarily replace what a jury is charged with determining, which is listening to the facts in a case, weighing evidence and deciding both liability and monetary damages that need to be paid in cases where defendants are at fault.  By statutorily eliminating any amount of damages in excess of a fixed limit and giving it an arbitrary value, without considering the victim's unique circumstances, the injured party is effectively being stripped of their constitutionally protected rights,  says attorney Richard Levin, who is a partner in Levin Riback Law Group in Chicago, Illinois.  Furthermore, although the Florida Supreme Court didn't specifically decide this case based on the fact that the plaintiffs didn't get a right to a fair jury trial, Attorney Levin says that is in fact what occurs in almost every other damage cap case around the country and consequently what makes these statutes is so fundamentally unfair to injury victims.

Attorney Levin  further opined that he doesn't think caps work and  for the people who actually get one million dollars or more, that "You don't want their life under any circumstances."  These are victims who are badly burned or dismembered and have the worst living circumstances possible. Unfortunately, many people think that if some tragically injured person suddenly gets millions of dollars, that somehow their life has become as it was before the accident or malpractice occurred.  "Providing a substantial economic recovery is the only way to give these people a form of justice", Levin says, and these funds in no way make plaintiffs rich, an "absolute misconception" that leads to bad law and legislation such as damage caps.  He added that it's unfair and betrays a lack of understanding on the way people perceive the system works and that caps have been sold to legislatures as preventing people who aren't legitimately hurt from receiving exorbitant amount of money and when in fact the judicial system almost never allows that to occur.

Richard Levin Levin & Riback Law Group Source: http://www.levinriback.com/our-team/richard-i-levin/

Richard Levin

Levin & Riback Law Group

Source: http://www.levinriback.com/our-team/richard-i-levin/

This ruling, which only has an effect in Florida, will probably increase the amount of filings now, Levin believes, as will give people with serious injuries access to the court through greater interest by trial lawyers in pursuing these cases.  Prior to this ruling, malpractice cases were hard to prosecute if they were capped because the cases are extremely expensive to pursue and with a capped value, only a certain amount of economic recover can be realized.  The out of pocket costs for attorneys makes it virtually impossible to bring cases on behalf of people because they end up upside-down on their case, Levin says.

Richard Levin is an attorney with the Levin Riback Law Group in Chicago, Illinois and is considered one of the leading trial lawyers both in Illinois and through out the country. We appreciate his joining us at the Legal Broadcast Network, a network providing online, on-demand legal news and video content.  The Legal Broadcast Network is a featured network of Sequence Media Group.

NCAA an "Unlawful Cartel" according to lawsuit filed by noted sports law Attorney David Feher

The recent ruling in the O'Bannon case shows the NCAA and their restrictions are subject to challenge on a number of different fronts.  While the O'Bannon case involves intellectual property rights, New York sports law attorney's, David Feher and Jeffrey Kessler have filed a separate federal lawsuit against the NCAA looking to prove that they have been engaging in practices consistent with an illegal cartel for decades, resulting in substantial economic loss for athletes.

The lawsuit filed on March 17 in federal court in New Jersey, on behalf of Clemson defensive back Martin Jenkins, Rutgers basketball player J.J. Moore, UTEP tight end Kevin Perry, and Cal tight end Bill Tyndall - has presented claims that could bring an end to college athletics as they are currently organized and revenue shared. A copy of the action, which was filed in Federal Court in New Jersey, is available here

On this weeks Speaking of Justice, we were joined by Attorney David Feher who stated that in the past, the NCAA would make the argument that most college sports were appropriately defined as amateur endeavors and that the players on the field were, according to their self created definition, "student athletes". However,  in recent years with the awarding of multi-billion dollar TV contracts, multi-million dollar sponsorship contracts and the resulting explosion in coaching contracts and facility construction on university campuses, the claim made by the NCAA and member schools that college football and men's basketball are in any way amateur sports is being viewed as a self serving farce by many. 

David Feher Winston & Strawn Source: winston.com

David Feher

Winston & Strawn

Source: winston.com

As the press, courts and citizens increasingly come to the realization that these are billion dollar businesses, and that the NCAA is running commercial enterprises, making huge amounts of money for the NCAA and member schools. That it is clear all kinds of entities and individuals are making a great deal of money off the efforts of the student athlete and that a sense of size and nature of that injustice is building, Feher says.  "That's not only wrong but it is also in direct violation of the anti-trust laws of the United States."

In the interview, Attorney Feher refers to the NCAA an "unlawful cartel," because it is set up with rules that don't give the schools the freedom of choice in how they treat or compensate their "student athletes".  Under the current governing structure of the NCAA, an agreement is set up between the member schools that they'll pay for athletes up to a certain amount but, that they won't pay a penny more than any other school, which according to Attorney Feher, is a classic price-fixing arrangement in the labor market.

In conclusion, Attorney Feher believes that the NCAA should comply with the anti-trust laws and stop engaging in price-fixing and preventing member schools from deciding what to pay their players and how to fairly compensate them. "There's a need for fundamental change" and not just having a few bones thrown such as expanded meals or slightly better health care.

He also clarified that his case is seeking to get a ruling for injunctive relief and not determine damages at this point in time. As a result he believes the judge should be able to move through this case in an expedited fashion and accelerate a decision on the crucial primary arguments.   We are "going to push this thing full speed ahead," according to Attorney Feher.

David Feher is a litigation partner in the firm’s New York office of Winston and Strawn and co-chair of the firm’s sports law sub-practice group. He is one of the leading sports lawyers in the country. He has extensive experience in complex litigation's, negotiations and arbitration's involving contract, intellectual property, antitrust and international issues.

Mr. Feher has been outside counsel for the NFL Players Association and the NBA Players Association for many years. He is one of the prime negotiators of the collective bargaining agreements and antitrust settlements in the NFL (1993, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2011) and the NBA (1995, 1999, 2005 and 2011).

Mr. Feher has represented clients in many prominent sports lawsuits and arbitration's, including the Jenkins v. NCAA antitrust action challenging NCAA and major conference restrictions on competition for player services in Division I basketball and Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football, the Oakley/Rory McIlroy/Nike litigation (concerning a right of first refusal in Mr. McIlroy’s contract with Oakley, which resulted in a settlement with Mr. McIlroy), the NCAA/NIT litigation (which resulted in a favorable settlement for the five New York City colleges and universities that operated the NIT), the Reggie White and Patrick Ewing class actions, the NFL lockout insurance/network TV contract case,

He spoke with the Legal Broadcast Network, providing online, on-demand legal video news content.  The Legal Broadcast Network is a featured network of Sequence Media Group.