In Depth Legal Marketing Information

Dallas based Valero Cheats Workers Out of Wages with Labor Practices

2009-08-10T15:27:00.000-07:00

With revenues of $119 billion in 2008 and approximately 22,000 employees, Valero -- the largest oil refiner in North America -- has cornered the convenience store market with "sweat of the brow" labor practices. The oil behemoth requires its retail employees to work punishingly long overtime hours "off-the-clock" without pay to keep thousands of Valero corner stores open "round-the-clock" while the company earns massive profits, said Weinberg Law Firm, Labor Lawyer Dallas.

"To keep its gas pumps flowing, Valero virtually pumps the lifeblood out of its workers who are expected to be on call 24-7, but are only paid for a fraction of the time they spend working," said Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, one of the country's leading class action firms with offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington, DC. "This class action aims to turn off this oil Goliath's unfair pay practices."

Los Angeles man gets second DUI in two weeks

2009-08-10T14:40:00.000-07:00

A Naperville man has an arraignment date pending in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton after being arrested and charged with drunken driving for the second time in two weeks, said Michael Bialys, Los Angeles DUI lawyer.

Jeffrey M. Anderson, 47, faces new charges of driving under the influence of alcohol and failure to give information after striking an unattended vehicle or property, according to court records.

Anderson's latest brush with the law occurred about 3:34 p.m. Aug. 2, Naperville police Sgt. Gregg Bell said. He was stopped at 8 W. Gartner Road, in the Naperville Plaza strip mall just west of Washington Street.

Porch catastrophic injury: New York says it's up to you

2009-08-05T11:01:00.000-07:00

He declined to make either of the two victims available for comment, citing their lingering trauma from the accident. But Kapil Mokhat, Mansuria's brother-in-law, said he suspected there was something wrong with the structure each time he visited the apartment and climbed the "shaky" stairs.

"I told them: 'You should report it,' " Mokhat recalled. "I guess they never did."

Robert Valente, who bought the two-story building in 2006, said he was unaware there were any problems with the porch, said John Q. Kelly, a New York catastrophic injury lawyer.

"It wasn't unsound," Valente said. "I've been on it. Had I known [the porch was unsafe], this would never be an issue."

Northrop Grumman-TRW whistle-blower case settle

2009-08-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

In the latest case, whistleblower lawyer Los Angeles alleged that research conducted in 1995 "clearly demonstrated" the parts would fail if placed in satellites that were being developed for the secretive National Reconnaissance Office. But TRW didn't inform the government of the findings even after problems ensued.

Northrop said that "while the company believes it acted properly under its contracts and had substantive defenses to the claims, it also believes that settlement is in the best interest of all parties as it releases the company from the government's claims, avoids litigation and preserves a valued customer relationship."

Huron Consulting's attractive saga quickly losing its feel-good aspect

2009-08-04T14:38:00.000-07:00

David Greising
August 4, 2009

Kickbacks? Until then it had appeared the main concern revolved around executives at firms being bought by Huron who had benefited personally in ways that might not pass accounting muster.

No one had suggested Huron's brass may have benefited somehow too. But now that Huron has mentioned it, we certainly will.

Until last week, Huron had earned attention as one of the fastest-growing U.S. companies. It seemed poised to cash in on some of the modern corporate maladies: runaway litigation, aggressive regulation, accounting ineptitude and so on.

litigation lawyer Chicago

Pittsburgh DUI Patrols, Checkpoints Coming This Weekend

2009-08-03T16:01:00.000-07:00

PITTSBURGH -- City police will be conducting sobriety checkpoints and roving DUI patrols in Pittsburgh this weekend.

The patrols and checkpoints will be held in the South Hills area from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m., police said.

Police are not required to say specifically where their activity will be focused.

Anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs is urged to call a taxi, use mass transit or call a sober friend or relative to get them home.

Hire a Pittsburgh DUI Defense Lawyer

Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers Ringler Kearney Alvarez LLP

2009-07-31T11:36:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles personal injury law firm Ringler Kearney Alavarez LLP have established themselves as a premier law firm by providing clients with consistently excellent service. They pride themselves on their intellect, creativity and tenacity.

These Los Angeles class action attorneys have achieved victories in over 100 trials with total verdicts in excess of $250 million.

Ringler Kearney Alvarez LLP achieves their verdicts by utilizing their substantial financial resources to obtain the best result possible for each of their clients. This Los Angeles train accident specialist law firm fights tirelessly for their clients, no matter the cost and no matter the foe.

New York Personal Injury Lawyer John Q. Kelly

2009-01-08T14:34:00.000-08:00

New York Lawyer John Q. Kelly is pleased to announce the launch of his new website for The Kelly Group P.C.

The website can be viewed at http://www.kellygrouppc.com and features notable cases and clients of Mr. Kelly.

About John Q. Kelly
One of the most renowned litigators in the country, Mr. Kelly has a proven track record in complex civil and corporate litigation nationwide.

His clients include some of the most widely publicized victims in recent times, including:

- Estate of Nicole Brown Simpson
- Parents of Natalee Holloway
- Estate of Kathleen Savio, ex-wife of Drew Peterson
- Estate of Heiress Anne Scripps Douglas
- Former Yankee great Joe Pepitone

Chatsworth Train Crash

2008-09-26T13:21:00.000-07:00

www.rkallp.com

Los Angeles's Metrolink Had Similar Wreck in 2002

2008-09-19T15:53:00.001-07:00

Metrolink worker sued Burlington Northern Santa Fe, saying his alcoholism returned after the fatal 2002 Placentia collision.

A metrolink conductor who said his drinking problems resumed after the Placentia train crash in 2002 will receive $8.5 million to settle his lawsuit against one of the nations largest railroads.

Patrick Phillips of Riverside agreed Tuesday to settle his suit against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. The case was set to go to trial next week in Orange County Superior Court.

Phillips, now 52, suffered minor head injuries the morning of April 23, 2002 when a Burlington Northern Freight train crashed into a Metrolink commuter train in Placentia. Three people died and more than 260 were injured in the early morning crash.

Though his injuries were slight, the conductor alleged that the trauma was serious enough to trigger a resurgence of his severe alcoholism, which he said he had controlled since rehabilitation in the early 1990's.

"I have never seen a case like this in 30 years, yet it is indeed what happened here," said Jerome L. Ringler, Phillips' attorney.

"We had extensive medical evaluations by a variety of neurological specialists. All were in accord that his injury, although minor, changed his behavior."

After the train crash, Phillips was hospitalized for evaluation but released about two hours later, Ringler said. In the months after the crash, however, Phillips allegedly resumed his alcohol abuse, resulting in at least two other hospitalizations.

Ringler said his client was finally diagnosed with alcohol-related dementia, a sever mental deficiency.

Phillips, who is now disabled after working 12 years for Metrolink, was unavailable for comment. He is living with a sister in Riverside.

Under terms of the settlement, Phillips will receive $8.5 million, including interest, paid out over 20 years. The amount is worth about $4.5 million in today's dollars.
Officials for Burlington Northern Santa Fe, one of the nations four largest railroads, confirmed the settlement but declined to discuss the case.

Phillips' lawsuit is one of more than 100 Civil cases stemming from the Placentia crash, which federal investigators said was caused by an inattentive Burlington Norther crew that missed a warning signal.

The lawsuits allege the collision could have been prevented by an automatic braking system, long sought by the federal National Transportation Safety Board.
They also contend that the freight train crew was fatigued by overwork and that the Burlington Northern conductor had a history of losing track of signals.

In December, an Orange County jury awarded Pamela Macek, 53, also of Riverside, about $9 million in damages for psychological and physical injuries suffered in the crash. Her case was the first to go to trial.

Two Traps that Smart, Hard-Working Professionals Fall Into

2008-05-14T16:32:00.000-07:00

Bringing in new business for a firm requires a good prospect profile, quality content, constructive meetings, timely responses, good listening, multiple interactions, fit between services and needs…. And that supposes everything works without problems. What about addressing common mistakes that complicate rainmaking?

As for that question, rainmakers of professional services often fall into two traps. One trap is All-or-nothing thinking. Another is the Build-it-and-they-will-come attitude. Here's what they are and how to avoid them.

The All-or-Nothing Thinking Trap

I met with an actuary who attended an association meeting a month ago. He had planned to follow up with thirty people he had met there and admitted that he hadn't done so. I asked why not and he responded, "I haven't got time to follow up with thirty people."

While true, this answer is logically flawed. He could at least have followed up with the most important contact he made at the event, a senior vice president he was targeting. He might have even found time to follow up with five or maybe even ten. Instead, he had fallen into the trap of all-or-nothing thinking.

Here are two more examples:

* A business developer at a Big Four accounting firm helped a partner craft a letter to the CEO of a bank. A note came back from the CEO, saying he had passed the letter on to his CFO, and suggesting that the accountant follow up there.

The partner told the business developer, "You see, it didn't work." He had apparently defined success as immediate access to the CEO. It was get that meeting or nothing.

* A management consultant was developing the call discipline required to build a referral network and he found it onerous. Like the actuary described above, she was having difficulty finding time for making calls. "Besides," she added, "what can I possibly have to say to all these people every month?"

She had fallen into the all-or-nothing trap by thinking that she had to call everyone on her list once a month. That might be true of some of her contacts, but more infrequent intervals would be appropriate for most of them.

In my experience, this is a common kind of error. It seems so obvious that people feel embarrassed when you point out that they have made it.

All three of the professionals described here are extremely smart. They just haven't learned yet that rain making requires many small advances to win big every once in a while. They haven't yet parsed the effort down to the many small steps that they can make day after day. When they do, they will be well on their way to becoming rainmakers.

The Build-It-and-They-Will-Come Trap

People making this error assume that if they make one highly visible effort, business will come. They feel surprised and almost cheated when it doesn't.

The Brochure and Website Fallacies are, perhaps, the most common versions of this trap. They are especially common when professionals start a firm or a new practice. In many such cases professionals rush to create a brochure or a website and then wait for the business to come in. It doesn't.

Here are a two more examples of such thinking:

* Attorneys from a major law firm made a presentation to several members of a private equity firm to introduce their services, knowing that deals these people worked on produced millions of dollars in legal fees each year.

When no work resulted from the pitch within three months, the head of the Corporate Practice at the law firm declared the effort a failure. Actually, the attorneys had made a good impression on the people they presented to and that was about all the attorneys could expected from one meeting.

* Several partners at a management consulting firm said that giving speeches didn't work for their firm. Over the years, they have given many speeches and never turned up any new business from it. They had done little, if any, follow-up work after the speeches, apparently waiting at the phone for calls from prospective clients, who would say, "I heard what you said last week and thought it was so wonderful that I was hoping, just hoping, you could come to our company and…."

When they had an opportunity to speak, these partners often arrived at the events shortly before they were scheduled to speak and rushed back to their clients as soon at their speech was over. When they began to treat speeches as simply one element out of many needed to build relationships with prospective clients, they began to win business.

Remember, there are many steps to getting a client to hire you. One event is unlikely to generate business, and if it does, recognize that this is unusual and lucky, rather than the norm. You need persistence to get new clients.

* * *

The illogic of the people in these examples may seem laughably obvious as I describe it here. But I assure you it wasn't obvious to them at the time, and I consistently see examples of smart, hard-working professionals falling into the Build-It-and-They-Will-Come and the All-or-Nothing trap. Be careful that you are not one of them too.

Full Article

Willbros Group Agrees to Pay $22M Penalty

2008-05-14T16:31:00.001-07:00

Willbros Group Inc. (Willbros Group), a publicly-traded company that provides construction, engineering and other services in the oil and gas industry, and Willbros International Inc. (Willbros International), the wholly owned subsidiary through which it conducts international operations, have agreed to pay a $22 million criminal penalty in connection with corrupt payments to Nigerian and Ecuadoran government officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the Department of Justice announced today.

The Department filed a deferred prosecution agreement with Willbros Group and Willbros International, as well as criminal information against both entities (collectively referred to as Willbros) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The six-count criminal information charges Willbros with one count of conspiring to make bribe payments to Nigerian and Ecuadoran officials, two counts of violating the FCPA in connection with the authorization of specific corrupt payments to officials in those countries and three counts of violating the FCPA by falsifying books and records relating to corrupt payments and a tax fraud scheme.

According to the criminal information, from late 2003 through March 2005, Willbros employees agreed to make corrupt payments totaling more than $6.3 million to Nigerian government officials to assist in obtaining and retaining a $387 million contract for work on a major engineering, procurement and construction gas pipeline project known as the Eastern Gas Gathering System (EGGS). In exchange for the EGGS project, the conspirators corruptly paid, promised to pay and authorized payments to officials of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), the state-owned oil company in Nigeria; NNPC�s subsidiary, the National Petroleum Investment Management Services (NAPIMS); a senior official in the executive branch of the Nigerian federal government; officials of a multinational oil company serving as the operator of the EGGS joint venture; and a political party.

NNPC is responsible for developing Nigeria�s oil and gas wealth and regulating the industry, and is the majority shareholder in certain joint ventures with multinational oil companies. NAPIMS manages NNPC�s investments in the joint ventures. Among other functions, NAPIMS and NNPC approve the award of major oil and gas construction projects to private contractors, such as Willbros Group.

The criminal information further alleges that certain Willbros employees based in South America agreed to make approximately $300,000 in corrupt payments to Ecuadoran government officials of the state-owned oil company PetroEcuador and its subsidiary, PetroComercial, to assist in obtaining the Santo Domingo project, which involved the rehabilitation of approximately sixteen kilometers of a gas pipeline in Ecuador, running from Santo Domingo to El Beaterio.

In a related matter, Willbros Group reached a settlement today with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in which the company agreed to pay $10.3 million in disgorgement of all profits and pre-judgment interest in connection with the corrupt payments to the Nigerian government officials. In total, Willbros agreed to pay more than $32 million in penalties, disgorgement and interest in the criminal and SEC cases.

In recognition of Willbros' thorough review of the improper payments, the companies� exemplary cooperation, the companies� implementation of enhanced compliance policies and procedures, and the companies� engagement of an independent corporate monitor, the Department has agreed to defer prosecution of these companies for three years. If Willbros Group and Willbros International abide by the terms of the agreement, the Department will dismiss the criminal information when the term of the agreement ends.

This case is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Mark F. Mendelsohn and Trial Attorney Stacey K. Luck of the Criminal Division�s Fraud Section. It was previously handled by former Trial Attorney Thomas E. Stevens, also with the Criminal Division�s Fraud Section. This case is being investigated by the FBI�s Washington Field Office, and Internal Revenue Service- Criminal Investigation Division. Substantial assistance was provided by the Criminal Division�s Office of International Affairs. The investigation is ongoing.

The Fraud Section acknowledges the assistance of the Fort Worth Regional Office of the SEC. In addition, the Department acknowledges the help provided, in the form of mutual legal assistance, by Nigeria�s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

Solicitor General To Leave the Dept. of Justice

2008-05-14T16:21:00.000-07:00

Today, the Department of Justice announced that Solicitor General Paul D. Clement will end his current service to the Department on June 2, 2008.

Nominated by President Bush on March 14, 2005, Clement was confirmed as Solicitor General on June 8, 2005, and was sworn in on June 13, 2005. Prior to his confirmation, he served for over four years as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, and during that period served for nearly a year as Acting Solicitor General. Clement�s tenure of over seven years in the Office of the Solicitor General is the longest period of continuous service in that office by an individual who served as Solicitor General since Samuel Phillips, who served from 1872-1885.

�Paul Clement is one of the nation�s finest appellate lawyers,� said Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. �I am deeply grateful to Paul for his service to the Department and to the nation during his seven-year tenure in the Office of the Solicitor General. I will miss not only Paul�s superb advocacy on behalf of the United States, but also his wise counsel and keen legal analysis.�

During his time in the Office of the Solicitor General, Clement argued 49 cases before the Supreme Court, prevailing in the vast majority of them. Landmark cases argued by Clement include Tennessee v. Lane, McConnell v. FEC, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Gonzales v. Raich, and Gonzales v. Carhart. He also argued many other significant cases in both the Supreme Court and the lower courts involving novel and important legal issues concerning the conduct of the War on Terror.

The Office of the Solicitor General is responsible for conducting all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and for supervising litigation in the federal appellate courts. Oral arguments for the 2007 Supreme Court term were completed in April 2008. The Department will submit all of its briefs for action during this term by the end of May 2008.

Prior to today�s announcement, Clement informed the President and the Attorney General of his plans to resign.

Michael Khouri Launches New Website

2008-05-14T16:20:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Professional Licensing and Health Care defense attorney, Michael Khouri’s law firm specializing in health care and criminal defense as well as licensing defense, announced the launch of its new Web site today, www.khourilaw.com. The website was designed by Los Angeles law firm web design company Law Promo.

The new Web site provides a comprehensive overview of the services provided by Los Angeles Defense Attorney, Michael Khouri. Mr. Khouri has been practicing law in Orange County for over 26 years, his expertise spans from Professional License Defense to Med-Care/Medi-Cal audit defense to Criminal Defense. The new website showcases Mr. Khouri’s extensive career and invaluable expertise.

About Michael Khouri:

Michael Khouri has been practicing law in Orange County for over 26 years.
He is considered an expert in professional licensing defense and the defense of Medi-Care/Medi-Cal audits, and has tried in excess of 100 cases. An expert in representing health care providers, Michael has proven his abilities with a number of cases and has spoken at multiple events. He is recognized throughout California and the Country for his integrity and firm resolve to help his clients get the best possible resolution to their licensing or criminal matters.

About Law Promo:

Law Promo understands that Law Firm Websites should be about more than graceful and compelling design. They must portray your firm's distinctiveness, make it easy to locate relevant experience and make a lasting impact on your audience. We bring strategy, creativity, technology and unmatched experience to bear as we develop unique websites that let you speak and be heard. We are the leading provider of web development services for attorneys, law firms and bar associations. With over 260 clients, we are experts at delivering effective web and online marketing solutions for the legal industry. Law Promo consistently provides powerful and effective web site designs that have met or exceeded their clients’ expectations.

If you would like more information about this topic or would like to talk with Michael Khouri, please contact Michael Khouri at (949) 336-2433.

Contact Information:
Michael Khouri
Khouri Law
(949) 336-2433
www.khourilaw.com

If you would like more information about Online legal marketing or law firm website design, please contact Law Promo:

Law Promo
3278 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90010
1-866-886-0548
213-365-8325
www.lawpromo.com

Baker McKenzie Appoints David Mcleod Head of Global Business Solutions

2008-05-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

Baker & McKenzie has appointed David M. MacLeod as Director of Global Business Solutions. Mr. MacLeod, who will be based in Chicago, will take a leadership role in creating, implementing and delivering the Firm’s technology-based business solutions.

Mr. MacLeod has more than 20 years of experience in aligning technology investments with business strategy and functional directives for a diverse set of industry leading organizations. Most recently, he ran a consulting firm focused on clients needing assistance setting and monitoring business goals. Prior to that, he was responsible for leading IT investments, planning, customer service, and process re-engineering for one of the leading global restaurant companies. In addition, he spent 15 years with a Big Four accounting firm, six of those years as partner.

Sue Hall, Baker & McKenzie’s Chief Information Officer, said: “David’s background and consistent track record in integrating strategy, business consulting and IT services into business solutions will help us enhance our information framework and customer service capabilities.”

Mr. MacLeod holds a Masters in Industrial Engineering and B.S. in Mathematics and Economics, both from the University of Pittsburgh.

Article from Breaking Legal News

2008-05-05T17:36:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — Individuals and businesses making contributions to charity should keep in mind several important tax law changes made last summer by the Pension Protection Act.
The new law offers older owners of individual retirement accounts a new way to give to charity. It also includes rules designed to provide both taxpayers and the government greater certainty in determining what may be deducted as a charitable contribution. Some of these changes include the following.
New Tax Break for IRA Owners
An IRA owner, age 70 ½ or over, can directly transfer tax-free, up to $100,000 per year to an eligible charitable organization. This option is available in tax years 2006 and 2007. Eligible IRA owners can take advantage of this provision, regardless of whether they itemize their deductions. Distributions from employer-sponsored retirement plans, including SIMPLE IRAs and simplified employee pension (SEP) plans are not eligible.
To qualify, the funds must be contributed directly by the IRA trustee to the eligible charity. Amounts so transferred are not taxable and no deduction is available for the amount given to the charity.
Not all charities are eligible under this provision. For example, donor-advised funds and supporting organizations are not eligible recipients.
Transferred amounts are counted in determining whether the owner has met the IRA’s required minimum distribution rules. Where individuals have made nondeductible contributions to their traditional IRAs, a special rule treats transferred amounts as coming first from taxable funds, instead of proportionately from taxable and nontaxable funds, as would be the case with regular distributions.
Rules for Clothing and Household Items
To be deductible, clothing and household items donated to charity after Aug. 17, 2006, must be in good used condition or better. However, a taxpayer may claim a deduction of more than $500 for any single item, regardless of its condition, if the taxpayer includes a qualified appraisal of the item with the return. Household items include furniture, furnishings, electronics, appliances, and linens.
Guidelines for Monetary Donations
To deduct any charitable donation of money, a taxpayer must have a bank record or a written communication from the charity showing the name of the charity and the date and amount of the contribution. A bank record includes canceled checks, bank or credit union statements and credit card statements. Bank or credit union statements should show the name of the charity and the date and amount paid. Credit card statements should show the name of the charity and the transaction posting date.
Donations of money include those made in cash or by check, electronic funds transfer, credit card, and payroll deduction. For payroll deductions, the taxpayer should retain a pay stub, Form W-2 wage statement or other document furnished by the employer showing the total amount withheld for charity, along with the pledge card showing the name of the charity.
Prior law allowed taxpayers to back up their donations of money with personal bank registers, diaries or notes made around the time of the donation. Those types of records are no longer sufficient.
This provision applies to contributions made in taxable years beginning after Aug. 17, 2006. For taxpayers that file returns on a calendar-year basis, including most individuals, the new provision applies to contributions made beginning in 2007.
The new law does not change the prior-law requirement that a taxpayer get an acknowledgement from a charity for each deductible donation (either money or property) of $250 or more. However, one statement containing all of the required information may meet the requirements of both provisions.
To help taxpayers plan their holiday-season and year-end donations, the IRS offers the following additional reminders:
Contributions are deductible in the year made. Thus, donations charged to a credit card before the end of the year count for 2006. This is true even if the credit-card bill isn’t paid until next year. Also, checks count for 2006 as long as they are mailed this year.
Check that the organization is qualified. Only donations to qualified organizations are tax-deductible. IRS Publication 78, available online and at many public libraries, lists most organizations that are qualified to receive deductible contributions. The searchable online version can be found on IRS.gov under, “Search for Charities.” In addition, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and government agencies are eligible to receive deductible donations, even though they often are not listed in Publication 78.
For individuals, only taxpayers who itemize their deductions on Schedule A can claim a deduction for charitable contributions. This deduction is not available to people who choose the standard deduction, including anyone who files a short form (1040A or 1040EZ). A taxpayer will have a tax savings only if the total itemized deductions (mortgage interest, charitable contributions, state and local taxes, etc.) exceeds the standard deduction. Use the 2006 Schedule A, available now on IRS.gov, to determine whether itemizing is better than claiming the standard deduction.
For all donations of property, including clothing and household items, get from the charity, if possible, a receipt that includes a description of the donated property. If a donation is left at a charity’s unattended drop site, keep a written record of the donation that includes a description of the property and its condition.
The deduction for a motor vehicle, boat or airplane donated to charity is usually limited to the gross proceeds from its sale. This rule applies if the claimed value of the vehicle is more than $500. Form 1098-C, or a similar statement, must be provided to the donor by the organization and attached to the donor’s tax return. See IRS Publication 526, Charitable Contributions, for more information.

www.breakinglegalnews.com

What is an offer in compromise?

2008-01-27T17:38:00.000-08:00

The Offer in Compromise (OIC) is a program that allows a taxpayer to settle their delinquent taxes for LESS than the total amount the IRS claims they owe.The OIC is arguably the most widely used of all tax relief programs. In addition, new tax laws have given fresh hope to those who previously did not qualify for an OIC under old legislation.Our staff at Progressive have the skills and experience to determine whether an Offer in Compromise is the program for you. Retaining our tax professionals guarantees you piece of mind. You can rest assured:
Settle your tax bill for LESS than the IRS claims you owe! We know all updated OIC administrative procedures and tax laws.
We have considerable weapons including Special Circumstance Cases and Appeals.
We know that a prepared and calculated approach is the only way to maintain our excellent track record of consistent OIC acceptance
If you qualify for the OIC program, you can save thousands of dollars in taxes, penalties and interest. Taxpayers can negotiate settlements on all types of taxes, including most payroll taxes, penalties, and interest.
The OIC program provides taxpayers who owe the IRS more than they could ever afford to pay, the opportunity to pay a small amount as a full and final payment.
A Doubt as to Collectability (DATC) Offer in Compromise is negotiated on the basis of a taxpayer's inability to pay and takes into account the taxpayer's current financial position including the taxpayer's equity in assets.
The OIC program also allows taxpayers that do not agree that they owe the tax or feel that the tax has been incorrectly calculated, an opportunity to file an Offer in Compromise- Doubt as to Liability (DATL) and have their tax liabilities reconsidered. More information: Offer in Compromise