The introduction of financial facts may provide some clarity to the working parts of this case. KM's financial statements that have made their way to the public don't correlate with someone receiving public assistance while saving tens of thousands of dollars in the absence of employment that would provide for such savings.
I wonder what the IRS would make of the money paid to KM from the dental office and KMs tax situation in general. Without a contract, proper employment paperwork, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes, etc, it would seem that any number of statutes were violated by compensating her with paychecks from a business. Would be amazing if her "salary" for working (?) at home was deducted from the business as a pre-tax expense.
If she was working (?) from home, I wonder if there is a shred of evidence of the work she was doing.
Finally, the IRS may end up solving some of these questions. If the immediate family of KM are liquidating their assets, retirement accounts, etc, then there will be an easy paper trail as they transfer an immense sum of money to cover attorney fees, forensic accountants, investigators, etc. There should also be appropriate tax documentation that allows an understanding of the flow of money between parties, if done legitimately.
Maybe she does have the money. Somehow, she can afford cars, 2 phones, cosmetic surgery, kids, routine living expenses and a couple of attorneys in the absense of gainful employment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Someone mentioned the potential of evidence if the tax returns of the Adelsons were to be investigated for alleged employment violations with regard to payment made to Magbanua from the time of Dan Markel’s murder to the time of Magbanua’s arrest. It is customary that all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
How would you convince a judge to order the investigation of the tax returns of suspected people who are innocent until proven guilty?
The lawyers of Magbanua are to show why no conflict of interests exists between their representation of Magbanua and their sources of remuneration by this coming Friday 3-24-17. Reposted below is a passage from the “Tax Prof Blog” website, which is edited by Paul L. Caron Pepperdine University School of Law. This piece purports to outline Magbanua attorneys’ response to the Judge and the State Attorneys with regard to the conflict of interest question.
“ …. The quote below is Tuesday night, we reached out to Magbanua's attorneys for comment. One of her attorneys, Christopher DeCoste, sent us the following statement:
"The real conflict of interest here is the prosecution is more ‘interested’ in proving their theory than finding the truth and it’s ‘conflicting’ with their judgment. The case against Katie is nothing more than the prosecution speculating as to how the murder went down and supported only by the unreliable word of a lifelong gangster. That evidence was recently put to the test, the cracks are massive and the prosecution is now desperate, willing to do anything, attack anyone, to hold it together. They’re wrong on their theory of the murder just like they're wrong on their theory of who's paying for Katie's defense, which is her immediate family. They’ve gone into their savings, into their retirement accounts, causing financial hardships, all in order to protect Katie from a wrongful conviction at the hands of an overzealous prosecution. In time their suspicions of the murder will be disproved just like the offensive suspicions that Tara Kawass and myself are focused on anything other than our duty to Katie,” said DeCoste.”
It could be the case that these lawyers are sincerely confident that there is no conflict of interest involved.
This response appears to be strongly worded against the State attorneys. Could this strong statement also suggest that the judge who ordered the attorneys to show cause over-steps his neutrality?
What specific reasoning has convinced the judge that it would be necessary and fair to respond to the conflict of interest allegation, or such allegation deserves always a response by its nature?
Since Magbanua is accused of a felony and held without bond, would not it be easier to motivate the investigation of the 2015 & 2016 tax returns of Magbanua first? That could be a natural course of actions in investigating her financial sources.
US Tax accounting law says that all incomes from whatever sources derived (including illegal sources?) are taxable unless explicitly excluded by the Code. If Magbanua’s tax returns show that she earned some taxable incomes in 2015-2016 but she did not pay taxes on those incomes, then it may be the case that the incomes are not reported because their sources are illicit.
If a logical reasoning outlays behind the order to respond to allegation of conflict of interest and Magbanua’s record shows violations of tax code, these combined facts could weight convincingly.
Would such combined potential fatcs be enough to convince the judge of the necessity and fairness if the tax returns of the Adelsons were to be investigated for potential employment violations? After all, Magbanua has claimed that the Adelsons were her sources of incomes, for service rendered.
In the presence of potentially illicit sources of income, would it not be necessary and fair to investigate also the 2015-2016 tax returns of Magbanua’s employers at that time? If only to clear-up allegations over suspects who are innocent until proven guilty, such investigation would make sense.
Such tax return investigations, if proven necessary and fairly done, could yield other evidence to indicate that large lump sums of undocumented origins are involved.
Then, such evidence could validate the necessity and fairness of investigating the tax returns of Magbanua’s relatives. After all, she is accused of a grave felony and her relatives are purported by her high caliber lawyers to have gone into their savings, into their retirement accounts, causing them financial hardships, in order to protect Magbanua.
If the lawyers make such strongly worded statement while Magbanua’s financial records such as tax returns do not support the facts put forth, would that be enough for the judge to subpoena and to swear those generous and wealthy Magbanua relatives?
Anyway, it appears from the court records of Magbanua and Garcia that the State of Florida has provided their lawyers with some proof of material facts recently, which wordings are not publicly available. It is now the time for those lawyers to provide the State attorneys with some proof that there is no conflict of interest with the origination of their remunerations. Would the court make their response publicly available?
