Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Apr 19, 2014 9:44 pm

What say you WTN? (or anyone else)
3. Attorney-Client privilege is a long-standing legal concept which ensures that communication between an attorney and his/her client is completely private.

In Upjohn vs. the United States, the Supreme Court itself upheld attorney-client privilege as necessary "to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law. . ."

It doesn't matter what you're accused of-- theft. treason. triple homicide. With very limited exceptions, an attorney cannot be compelled to testify against a client, nor can their communications be subpoenaed for evidence.

Yet in a United States Tax Court decision announced on Wednesday, the court dismissed attorney client privilege, stating that:

"When a person puts into issue his subjective intent in deciding how to comply with the law, he may forfeit the privilege afforded attorney-client communications."

In other words, if a person works with legal counsel within the confines of the tax code to legitimately minimize the amount of taxes owed, that communication is no longer protected by attorney-client privilege.

Furthermore, the ruling states that if the individuals do not submit attorney-client documentation as required, then the court would prohibit them from introducing any evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-19/next-shoe-just-dropped-court-denies-attorney-client-privelege
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ADInvestmentDiv.Halpern.TC.WPD.pdf

Simply Amazing....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57008
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:13 pm

Hmmmm. Much as I despise tax frauds, especially (large) corporate tax frauds, that don't sound right.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:18 pm

dudejcb wrote:Hmmmm. Much as I despise tax frauds, especially (large) corporate tax frauds, that don't sound right.

lowering your tax burden legally is not tax fraud.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 57008
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:42 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
dudejcb wrote:Hmmmm. Much as I despise tax frauds, especially (large) corporate tax frauds, that don't sound right.

lowering your tax burden legally is not tax fraud.
True. I was alluding to those who bend (err, break) the rules and call it legit, all with the help of their lawyers who "interpret" the laws and regs in their favor.

No sure what drove this originally, but if the lawyer is advising his how to cheat and make it look legal (like say money laundering), then isn't he (the lawyer) violating the law, which in turn makes him a party to the crime such that client-attorney privilege no longer exists and instead it's conspiracy?

I'm no lawyer, just trying to think how this might have come about.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Court Denies Attorney-Client Privilege

Postby Nabs » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:32 pm

Except his lawyer has not been charged with a crime, conveniently so, because if he were it would not being attorney client privilege, it would be the right against self-incrimination.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests