Based on the advice of their CPA, an Arizona auto dealership ‘thought’ they reduced their tax liabilities through stock ownership plans devised by their CPA. Much later the IRS disapproved of these plans. The IRS sent past due tax demands to the owners. Eventually, the IRS settled the claims against the owners. The owners paid big bucks in fines and penalties. These owners then sued the CPA for negligence, breach of contract and other claims. The Maricopa County superior court judge concluded that the professional negligence claims accrued when the IRS issued its demand and those claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
The Arizona court of appeals reversed. It rejected a doctrine that the owner’s claims accrued upon the IRS’s demands. It also rejected a different concept that the claims accrued upon a final decision in the tax appeal. Instead, the Arizona court of appeals adopted a fact-based approach to claim accrual.
The Arizona court reasoned that the notice of deficiency did not necessarily commence the statute of limitations because continued consultation with an accountant after the notice of deficiency based on a reasonable belief of IRS error is legally inconsistent with requiring the commencement of a malpractice action regarding the same conduct.
Adopting a case-by-case or fact-based approach to claim accrual brings accounting malpractice claims in line with cases reviewing the statute of limitations for attorney malpractice.
Feel free to call Bill Miller from Scottsdale, Arizona at 602-319-6899 if you need help in an Arizona Court proceeding or you think the statute of limitations may have expired. His office is off the 101 in Scottsdale.
We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.

Prosecutors are in trouble after lawyers representing a doctor accused of fraud alleged the U.S. attorney’s office has been stealing documents. In court papers filed May 26, lawyers wrote prosecutors had gained access to discovery of the defense. According to the defense, an informant said an FBI agent had received CDs containing duplicates of discovery files the defense had assembled and scanned. The duplicates were provided by a government-contracted service that makes copies of government discovery documents that defense lawyers want to inspect. The defense said the owner of the service told them in an email that he has routinely provided the FBI with duplicates of the set-aside files. “It appears that this practice of surreptitiously duplicating the discovery work-product of defense counsel in the Southern District of Florida has been the norm for at least the last ten years,” lawyers representing Salo Schapiro, a Broward County doctor charged with health-care fraud, stated in court papers.
The lawyers say the files of documents they selected reveal their pre-trial strategy and qualify as “attorney work product.” As such, they argue, they are shielded under a doctrine that protects legal opinions, conclusions and other trial preparation material from opposing counsel. Mr. Schapiro’s lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke to dismiss the charges and, short of that, disqualify the entire prosecution team. The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provide for wide open discovery, yet an Arizona Judge would never tolerate this, nor should they. Our Rule 26.1 is set up to help find the truth, not misappropriate work product.
At the law firm of William A. Miller, in Phoenix Arizona, we have over 29 years of experience in dealing with dishonest lawyers. A handful have lost their licenses because of our bar complaints. If you are in a legal case and you suspect some lawyer or investigator knows things they should not, do not hesitate to call us at 602-319-6899 to discuss. Our office is conveniently located at 8170 North 86th Place, Suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258. We take our oath of confidentiality very serious.

We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title and escrow.

We recently represented a prestigious Phoenix doctor in a complex commercial jury trial. The Plaintiff was represented by the venerable law firm of Dickenson Wright. With law offices in many States and over 350 lawyers, these are the ‘big dogs’. Yet, at the end of the day we won and here is what the good…

Araceli King, a claims specialist from Texas, isn’t a man named Luiz. The distinction is clear. Yet, cable bill collectors, who were under the mistaken impression that she was another person and wouldn’t stop calling her about a late payment. Even after she got on the phone with a representative and explained to them that…

The Kansas Supreme Court just issued an opinion that hundreds of truck drivers who delivered packages were employees and not independent contractors. This has huge tax, benefit and healthcare repercussions for FedEx. According to the court, the drivers sued FedEx alleging they were improperly classified as independent contractors under the law. The drivers are seeking…