Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Aug. 29, 2005, the Department of Justice, the IRS and KPMG LLP (KPMG) announced that an agreement had been reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York resolving the Grand Jury investigation into tax shelters designed, developed and sold by KPMG from 1996 to 2002 and related conduct. The settlement also resolved the IRS's examination of these activities. KPMG and the government entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), pursuant to which KPMG acknowledged responsibility for engaging in a massive tax fraud conspiracy that generated at least $11 billion in fraudulent tax losses, which cost the government at least $2.5 billion in evaded taxes.
The DPA requires KPMG to pay a criminal fine of $128 million, restitution to the IRS of $228 million, and an IRS penalty of $100 million — a total of $456 million, to be paid by Dec. 21, 2006. These payments will not be tax deductible nor covered by insurance. The criminal charge will be dismissed on Dec. 31, 2006, if KPMG complies with the stringent terms and conditions of the DPA. These include:
KPMG's global settlement enables it to avoid a criminal conviction that would probably have put it out of business like its former competitor Arthur Andersen LLP.
Prosecution of individuals, however, was not deferred. The government unsealed a single-count, 44-page indictment of eight former KPMG partners, one manager, and a former tax partner in the New York office of a prominent national law firm. They are accused, along with alleged co-conspirators, of participating in “a scheme to defraud the IRS by devising, marketing, and implementing fraudulent tax shelters, by preparing and causing to be prepared, and filing and causing to be filed with the IRS false and fraudulent U.S. individual income tax returns containing the fraudulent tax shelter losses, and by fraudulently concealing from the IRS those shelters.” United States v. Jeffrey Stein, et al., 05 Crim. 888 (S.D.N.Y. August 29, 2005), Indictment ' 15.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?