TOWNSEND & JONES TAX AND BUSINESS FORUM
The topic for the February 20">
February 2002
View Actual News Letter
TOWNSEND & JONES TAX AND BUSINESS FORUM
The topic for the February 20, 2002 Tax and Business Forum will be: Representing Spouses When Only One Spouse Owes Taxes. Patti Logan and Larry Jones will explore the problems and solutions to situations where only one spouse owes taxes. The Tax and Business Forum will be held from 7:30 - 9:10 AM at the University of Phoenix, Dallas/Ft. Worth Campus. The University of Phoenix Campus is located in Churchill Tower, 12400 Coit Road, Dallas, Texas. This is at the intersection of Coit and Churchill, just west of the AmeriSuites where we met last year. Park in the parking garage behind the building. Come to Room 102 which is in the front of the building on the first floor.
The Tax and Business Forum will be held at the same place on the third Wednesday of each month, except April. We will notify you of upcoming topics.
Registration is $10 per course. Specify on your check the course for which you are registering. CPAs and enrolled agents receive 2 hours of CPE credit. Send checks to Townsend & Jones, L.L.P., 8100 Lomo Alto, Suite 238, Dallas, Texas 75225. Phone 214-696-2661.
NEW PLACE TO FILE POWERS OF ATTORNEY
The Austin Service Center is no longer accepting the filing of powers of attorney. Powers of attorney are now sent to Ogden, Utah, at the following address:
CAF Unit
Internal Revenue Service
1160 W. 1200 South
MC 6737
Ogden, UT 84201The phone number for the CAF Unit is 801-620-4254, and the fax number is 801-620-4249 if you desire to fax the power of attorney. By faxing the power of attorney, it is recorded in the IRS system sooner.
NEW NUMBERS FOR HOTLINE AND EINs
The new hotline for tax practitioners is 866-860-4259. This line is not fully operational and will not be so until later in 2002. EINs can now be obtained by calling 866-816-2065.
Larry Jones discusses the IRS Appeals procedure. For the full article in adobe acrobat (pdf) format, click here.
LEARN MORE ABOUT IRS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
The IRS Criminal Investigation website (http://www.ustreas.gov/irs/ci/) tells about fraud alerts, the IRS Criminal Investigation, enforcement strategies, and more. The website has links to the following topics: Slavery Reparation Scam; Why is IRS Involved in Narcotics-Related Investigations?; Nonfiler Enforcement Program; and Abusive Trust Schemes. The Criminal Investigation's Nonfiler Initiative has been implemented by the IRS as a multi-functional, comprehensive effort called the National Nonfiler Strategy. The overall goal of this strategy is to bring taxpayers back into compliance and keep them there. In addition to nonfilers, the IRS will reach out to individual taxpayers who are not legally required to file but are potentially entitled to refunds or credits.
The following nonfiler statistics from the CI website represent CIs efforts in the past three full fiscal years, along with the first quarter of fiscal year 2002:
Nonfiler Statistics* FY99 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002
1st quarter (10/1/01 12/ 31/01)Prosecution Recommendations 310 257 269 54 Indictments/Informations 301 265 257 39 Convictions 289 232 219 48 Incarceration Rate** 78.7% 80.1% 83.9% 6.0% Avg. Months to Serve (w/Prison) 47 39 43 61 Avg. Months to Serve (All Sentences) 45 33 36 53 *All investigations that are initiated in one year are not necessarily recommended for prosecution, indicted and/or convicted in the same year.
**Incarceration may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof.Special care should be taken when representing nonfilers. Depending on whether or not the nonfiler has been contacted by the IRS and by whom could make a difference in the manner in which a nonfiler is advised.
In Seawright v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. No. 24 (2001), the IRS conceded that the taxpayers were entitled to a $300 business expense deduction for cat food that the taxpayers purchased and set out in their scrap yard for the purpose of attracting wild cats to deter snakes and rats. Must be an ordinary and necessary expense.
As we move into tax season, the IRS warns taxpayers of the following tax scams:
AFRICAN-AMERICANS GET A SPECIAL TAX REFUND. Thousands of African-Americans have been misled by people offering to file for tax credits or refunds related to reparations for slavery. There is no such provision in the tax law. Some unscrupulous promoters have encouraged clients to pay them to prepare a claim for this refund. But the claims are a waste of money. Promoters of reparations tax schemes have been convicted and imprisoned. The IRS reminds taxpayers that they could face up to a $500 penalty for filing such claims if they do not back away from the claim.
NO TAXES BEING WITHHELD FROM YOUR WAGES. Illegal schemes are being promoted that instruct employers not to withhold federal income tax or employment taxes from wages paid to their employees. These schemes are based on an incorrect interpretation of tax law and have been refuted in court. If you have concerns about your employer and employment taxes, you can get help by calling the IRS at 1-800-829-1040.
"I DON'T PAY TAXES -- WHY SHOULD YOU?" Con artists may talk about how they don't file or pay taxes and then charge people a fee to share their "secret." The real secret that these people don't reveal is that many of them actually do file and pay taxes -- they just won't publicly admit it. Again, the IRS reminds people that failure to file or pay taxes is subject to civil and/or criminal tax penalties.
PAY THE TAX, THEN GET THE PRIZE. The caller says you've won a prize and all you have to do to get it is pay the income tax due. Don't believe it. If you really won a prize, you may need to make an estimated tax payment to cover the taxes that will be due at the end of the year. But the payment goes to the IRS -- not the caller. Whether you've won cash, a car, or a trip, the prize giver generally sends you and the IRS a Form 1099 showing the total prize value that should be reported on your tax return.
UNTAX YOURSELF FOR $49.95. This one's as old as snake oil, but people continue to be taken in. And now it's on the Internet. The ads may say that paying taxes is "voluntary," but it is absolutely wrong. The U. S. courts have continuously rejected this and other similar arguments. Unfortunately, hundreds of people across the country have bought "untax packages" before finding out that following the advice contained in them can result in civil and/or criminal tax penalties being assessed. Numerous sellers of these bogus packages have been convicted on criminal tax charges.
SOCIAL SECURITY TAX SCHEME. Taxpayers shouldn't fall victim to a scam offering them refunds of the Social Security taxes they have paid during their lifetimes. The scam works by the victim paying a "paperwork" fee of $100, plus a percentage of any refund received, to file a refund claim with the IRS. This hoax fleeces the victims for the up-front fee. The law does not allow such a refund of Social Security taxes paid. The IRS processing centers are alert to this hoax and have been stopping the false claims.
"I CAN GET YOU A BIG REFUND . . . FOR A FEE!" Refund scheme operators may approach you wanting to "borrow" your Social Security Number or give you a phony W-2 so it appears that you qualify for a big refund. They may promise to split the refund with you, but the IRS catches most of these false refund claims before they go out. And when one does go out, the participant usually ends up paying back the refund along with stiff penalties and interest. Two lessons to remember: 1) Anyone who promises you a bigger refund without knowing your tax situation could be misleading you, and 2) Never sign a tax return without looking it over to make sure it's honest and correct.
SHARE/BORROW EITC DEPENDENTS. Unscrupulous tax preparers "share" one client's qualifying children with another client in order to allow both clients to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit. For example, if one client has four children they only need to list two for EITC purposes to get the maximum credit. The preparer will list two children on the first client's return and list the other two on another client's tax return. The preparer and the client "selling" the dependents split a fee. The IRS prosecutes the preparers of such fraudulent claims, and participating taxpayers could be subject to civil penalties.
IRS "AGENT" COMES TO YOUR HOUSE TO COLLECT. First, do not let anyone into your home unless they identify themselves to your satisfaction. IRS special agents, field auditors, and collection officers carry picture IDs and will normally try to contact you before they visit. If you think the person on your doorstep is an impostor, lock your door and call the local police. To report IRS impostors, call the Treasury Inspector General's Hotline at 1-800-366-4484.
"PUT YOUR MONEY IN A TRUST AND NEVER PAY TAXES AGAIN." Promoters of abusive trust schemes may charge $5,000 to $70,000 for "trust" packages. The fee enables taxpayers to have trust documents prepared, to utilize foreign and domestic trustees as offered by promoters and to use foreign bank accounts and corporations. Although these schemes give the appearance of the separation of responsibility and control from the benefits of ownership, these schemes are in fact controlled and directed by the taxpayer. A legitimate trust is a form of ownership that completely separates responsibility and control of assets from all of the benefits of ownership.
IMPROPER HOME-BASED BUSINESS. This scheme purports to offer tax "relief" but in reality is illegal tax avoidance. The promoters of these schemes claim that individual taxpayers can deduct most, or all, of their personal expenses as business expenses by setting up a bogus home-based business. But, the tax code firmly establishes that a clear business purpose and profit motive must exist in order to generate and claim allowable business expenses.
CLAIM DISABLED ACCESS CREDIT FOR PAY PHONES. Con artists sell expensive coin-operated pay telephones to individuals, contending they can claim a $5,000 Disabled Access Credit on their tax return because the telephones have volume controls. In reality, the Disabled Access Credit is limited to bona fide businesses that are coming into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This list is, of course, not exhaustive of the tax scams that the mind of man can conjure.
SOMETIMES HONESTY PREVAILS OVER DOCUMENTS
In Acuncius v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-21, the taxpayers were attempting to prove they were insolvent in 1997 so cancellation of indebtedness income would be excluded from their income under Section 108 of the Internal Revenue Code. To prove their case the taxpayers relied upon their own oral testimony as evidence of the fair market value of the assets owned and liabilities owed in 1997 immediately prior to the discharge. The Tax Court found that having observed the taxpayers' appearances and demeanors at trial, that their testimony was honest, forthright, and credible. Based solely upon the taxpayers' own testimony, since they had no documentary evidence to prove their case, the Tax Court found that the taxpayers owned approximately $8,500 in assets and owed $84,116 in liabilities. Thus, the taxpayers' liabilities exceeded the fair market value of their assets when their loan was discharged to such an extent that no discharge of indebtedness income was recognized.
WILL THE BUSINESS BE A HOBBY OR OPERATED FOR A PROFIT?
In Kahla v. Commissioner, F3rd (5th Cir., Sept. 7, 2001), the court found, affirming a Tax Court opinion, T.C. Memo. 2000-127, that the taxpayers did not conduct
their cattle-raising and deer operations in a businesslike manner. The taxpayers had no formal business plan, budgets, or accounting records. Their records and expense ledgers consisted primarily of canceled checks, invoices, and Forms 1099. These records were often inaccurate and incomplete. One instance the Tax Court noted was that the taxpayers often forgot to put a couple thousand dollars worth of cattle in their balance sheets. The taxpayers were unable to allocate specific costs between their two ranches because of their practice of aggregating expenses from both ranches.The taxpayers failed to keep separate bank accounts; they intermingled personal funds with those from their Schedule F activities. Additionally, despite the industry custom of maintaining yearly "herd books" for cattle, the taxpayers often failed to record and maintain accurate documentation of their inventory.
The fact that the taxpayers had experienced losses in 24 of the first 25 years of operation (1973-97) did not help them. There was no convincing evidence in the record indicating that the taxpayers undertook substantial action to rectify this situation. In fact, the taxpayers testified that they anticipated their cattle-raising activities would not be profitable for the foreseeable future. The taxpayers failed to take affirmative measures to mitigate continual and substantial losses, which is inconsistent with operating an activity with a profit motive.
This is an example of how not to run your "hobby" or "business". Experience shows that taxpayers in the cattle-raising business or horse racing business succeed with the IRS and the courts when they follow the recommended list of factors (Section 1.183-2(b), Income Tax Regs.) considered in determining whether an activity is engaged in for profit. These factors are: (1) The manner in which the taxpayer carried on the activity; (2) the expertise of the taxpayer or his advisors; (3) the time and effort expended by the taxpayer in carrying on the activity; (4) the expectation that assets used in the activity may appreciate in value; (5) the success of the taxpayer in carrying on other similar or dissimilar activities; (6) the taxpayer's history of income or losses with respect to the activity; (7) the amount of occasional profits, if any, which are earned; (8) the financial status of the taxpayer; and (9) whether elements of personal pleasure or recreation are controlling. No single factor is necessarily dispositive; rather, the facts and circumstances of the case ultimately control.
MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR COSMETIC SURGERY
In Al-Murshidi v. Commissioner, unpublished T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-185, the Tax Court allowed the taxpayer to deduct expenses for cosmetic surgery. The taxpayer suffered from severe obesity for a period of years prior to 1996. Without the aid of surgical intervention, the taxpayer lost over 100 pounds. As a result of the weight loss, the taxpayer developed a mass of loose-hanging skin which spanned the width of her abdomen and spilled over onto her upper thighs. The taxpayer was employed as a registered nurse in a hospital emergency room. Her duties called for frequent bending, running, and other physical activities. The skin mass prevented the taxpayer from comfortably performing her emergency room duties. Additionally, the mass was prone to skin breakdowns, sores, infections, pain, and irritation.
After the weight loss, the taxpayer underwent three surgeries to remove this skin mass. The first procedure utilized liposuction to remove 12 pounds of fat from the mass. The second procedure removed the excess skin of the mass. The final procedure was conducted to remove excess fluid which had collected between the skin and the abdominal muscles. The statements submitted by the plastic surgeon who performed the surgery described the procedures as "cosmetic" in nature. The procedures were not covered by the taxpayer's health insurance. The taxpayer paid for the surgeries and deducted the costs as medical expenses on her 1996 Federal income tax return.
The Tax Court found that obesity was well recognized in the medical community as a serious disease. The taxpayer continued to suffer from the effects of this disease in the form of the above-described skin mass that was a considered to be a deformity. This mass was not merely unsightly, it was prone to infection and disease and interfered with the taxpayer's daily life.
The procedures that the taxpayer underwent meaningfully promoted the proper function of her body and treated her disease. Despite the classification given to the procedures by the surgeon, the Tax Court found that these procedures were not "cosmetic surgery" for purposes of Section 213 of the Code and that the expenses were deductible to the extent the taxpayer could substantiate them. The expenses meaningfully promoted the proper function of the body to prevent or treat illness or disease. See Section 213(d)(9)(B) of the Code.
The Tax Court determined that the surgeon's description of the procedures was not correct, and found for the taxpayer based on the facts as they existed.
NEW LARGE CASE IDR FOR TAX SHELTERS
The IRS has developed a new standard IDR (Information Document Request) to be used in all LMSB audits effective 4/24/02. The IDR requests that the taxpayer identify "any transactions that are the same as or substantially similar to any listed transactions." Listed transactions are those identified in periodic IRS announcements pursuant to Regs. 1.6011-4T(b)(2) and 301.6111-2T(b)(2).
For each such listed transaction, the IDR requests that the taxpayer describe the transaction, describe the tax treatment of the transaction, and quantify the amounts involved and the general ledger accounts affected by the transaction. The IDR further requests that the taxpayer produce the documents related to the transaction (or, if too voluminous, an index of same), documents supplied by the promoter (including legal opinions), internal documents used by the corporate taxpayer in its decision making process, complete copies of the Board of Directors and Audit and Finance Committee meetings at which the transaction was considered, a list of the participants and their roles, and a list of persons within the taxpayer organization familiar with the transaction and available to meet within 2 weeks of the IDR.
Recognizing that some corporate taxpayers may assert privilege as to some of the documents, the IDR requests detailed information regarding the documents claimed to be privileged (such as date, author name and title, recipient(s) name(s) and title(s); subject matter of the document, and statement of the privilege claimed.
The IDR, by attachment, identifies the listed transactions as follows:
(1) Rev. Rul. 90-105, 1990-2 C.B. 69, (transactions in which taxpayers claim deductions for contributions to a qualified cash or deferred arrangement or matching contributions to a defined contribution plan where the contributions are attributable to compensation earned by plan participants after the end of the taxable year);
(2) Notice 95-34, 1995-1 C.B. 309, (certain trust arrangements purported to qualify as multiple employer welfare benefit funds exempt from the limits of 419 and 419A of the Internal Revenue Code);
(3) Notice 95-53, 1995-2 C.B. 334, (certain multiple-party transactions intended to allow one party to realize rental or other income from property or service contracts and to allow another party to report deductions related to that income (often referred to as "lease strips")):
(4) Transactions described in Part II of Notice 98-5, 1998-1 C.B. 334, (transactions in which the reasonably expected economic profit is insubstantial in comparison to the value of the expected foreign tax credits);
(5) Transactions substantially similar to those at issue in ASA Investerings Partnership v. Commissioner, 201 F.3d 505 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and ACM Partnership v. Commissioner, 157 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 1998), (transactions involving contingent installment sales of securities by partnerships in order to accelerate and allocate income to a tax-indifferent partner, such as a tax-exempt entity or foreign person, and to allocate later losses to another partner);
(6) Treas. Reg. 1.643(a)-8 (transactions involving distributions described in 1.643(a)-8 from charitable remainder trusts);
(7) Rev. Rul. 99-14, 1999-1 C.B. 835, (transactions in which a taxpayer purports to lease property and then purports to immediately sublease it back to the lessor (that is, lease- in/lease-out or LILO transactions));
(8) Notice 99-59, 1999-2 C.B. 761, (transactions involving the distribution of encumbered property in which taxpayers claim tax losses for capital outlays that they have in fact recovered);
(9) Treas. Reg. 1.7701(1)-3 (transactions involving fast-pay arrangements as defined in 1.7701(1)-3(b));
(10) Rev. Rul. 2000-12, 2000-11 I.R.B. 744, (certain transactions involving the acquisition of two debt instruments the values of which are expected to change significantly at about the same time in opposite directions);
(11) Notice 2000-44, 2000-36 I.R.B. 255, (transactions generating losses resulting from artificially inflating the basis of partnership interests);
(12) Notice 2000-60, 2000-49 I.R.B. 568, (transactions involving the purchase of a parent corporation's stock by a subsidiary, a subsequent transfer of the purchased parent stock from the subsidiary to the parent's employees, and the eventual liquidation or sale of the subsidiary);(13) Notice 2000-61, 2000-49 I.R.B. 569, (transactions purporting to apply 935 to Guamanian trusts);
(14) Notice 2001-16, 2001-9 I.R.B. 730, (transactions involving the use of an intermediary to sell the assets of a corporation);
(15) Notice 2001-17, 2001-9 I.R.B. 730, (transactions involving a loss on the sale of stock acquired in a purported 351 transfer of a high basis asset to a corporation and the corporation's assumption of a liability that the transferor has not yet taken into account for federal income tax purposes); and
(16) Notice 2001-45, 2001-33 I.R.B. 129, (certain redemptions of stock in transactions not subject to U.S. tax in which the basis of the redeemed stock is purported to shift to an U.S. taxpayer).
TAX TREATY INTERPRETATION ARTICLE
Jack Townsend has recently published a tax treaty interpretation article in the American Bar Association's Tax Lawyer. The article is John A. Townsend, Tax Treaty Interpretation, 55 Tax Lawyer 219 (Fall 2001). The article discusses the approaches to tax treaty interpretation and places them in an historical context. The article's main conclusions that are perhaps not mainstream conclusions -- at least not expressly articulated mainstream conclusions -- are
the Senate expectations as to the treaty to which it consents is controlling for U.S. tax treaty interpretation;
the Executive Branch representations to the Senate -- most particularly in the Treasury's Technical Explanation accompanying the proposed treaty submitted to the Senate -- generally should be accepted as a Senate interpretation unless the Senate indicates otherwise; and
Executive Branch interpretations are entitled to deference.
EQUITABLE TOLLING ON 3 YEAR DISCHARGEABILITY RULE IN BANKRUPTCY
On March 4, 2002, the Supreme Court decided Young v. United States, 535 U.S. ___ (2002). Mr. Townsend discusses that decision in the context of earlier cases in the following excerpt from his book on Tax Procedure:
In United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (1997), the taxpayers filed claims for refund beyond the normal statute of limitations for claims for refund. The taxpayers' disability rendered them unable to file their claims within the times prescribed. The issue was whether, under general equitable principles applicable with respect to some other types of claims against the Government, the statute of limitations could be equitably tolled by disability. In an earlier case involving a nontax statute of limitations, the Court had held that statutes of limitation might be equitably tolled, framing the inquiry to be whether there was good reason to believe that Congress intended strict compliance with the statute of limitations so that equitable tolling would not apply. In Brockamp, the Court held that textually and in context § 6511 indicated a congressional intent that there should be no equitable tolling.
After Brockamp, Congress provided for limited equitable tolling in § 6511(h) which now permits a suspension of the statute of limitations on claiming refunds during the period that a taxpayer is disabled. The statute uses the term "financially disabled," which is defined to mean the "individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." The relief does not apply during any period that the individual spouse or any other person (e.g., a guardian) is authorized to handle the individual's affairs.
Two further points about Brockamp. First, Brockamp dealt only with the refund statute of limitations in § 6511. The court found support for not permitting tolling in the detailed statutory language itself. This reasoning did not foreclose the inquiry as to other time limitations in the Code. Second, it is important to distinguish between a time period that is a true statute of limitations and a time period that is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the action. A true statute of limitations merely bars a remedy that was live during the statute of limitations. A time period that is jurisdictional requires the timely institution of the action in order to support the action. You may think the difference semantic, but one theoretical instance in which it might be important is where the defendant in an action was willing to or inadvertently did waive the bar of the statute of limitations (e.g., by not timely asserting it). If the time period were jurisdictional, the defendant could not waive the failure to satisfy the time period.
The Supreme Court has just reaffirmed the potential for equitable tolling of statutes of limitations in Young v. United States, 535 U.S. ___ (2002). Young involved the discharge of taxes in bankruptcy. The general rule is that taxes for which the return was due within three years of the date the petition for bankruptcy is filed are given a priority in bankruptcy and, most importantly, are not discharged. The taxpayers filed their 1992 income tax return on October 15, 1993, reporting a net tax liability due but did not pay the amount due. On May 1, 1996, within the three year period, the taxpayers filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding. The filing of a bankruptcy proceeding stays the IRS's collection actions, so after May 1, 1996, the IRS could not use its collection tools to try to collect the tax. Chapter 13 is a reorganization provision for wage earners and requires the approval of a plan which must include provision for the tax due. The taxpayers thereafter moved to dismiss the Chapter 13 proceeding and, on March 12, 1997, the day before the bankruptcy court entered its order of dismissal, the taxpayers filed for Chapter 7 liquidating bankruptcy. Taxes may be discharged in a Chapter 7 proceeding. The taxpayers urged that the 1992 tax liability was discharged in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding because it had been filed more than three years from date the return was due. The IRS urged, on the other hand, that the three year period had been tolled during the pendency of the Chapter 13 proceeding and therefore that the three year period, as thus tolled, had not lapsed upon the filing of the Chapter 7 proceeding. Taxpayers throughout the country were employing this "back-to-back" Chapter 13/Chapter 7 bankruptcy gambit to attempt to achieve discharge of their tax liabilities where a straight Chapter 7 proceeding could not have achieved it unless instituted after the three year period during which the IRS would have had unfettered power to collect.The Courts of Appeals had reached conflicting conclusions. Some read the statute literally and held for the taxpayers. Some applied equitable tolling. The Supreme Court took the Young case to resolve the conflicts. A unanimous Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Scalia, accepted the IRS's argument that the three year period had tolled during the pendency of the Chapter 13 proceeding so that the hapless taxpayers in Young (for whom we feel no sympathy since they were clearly trying to game the system) were not discharged.
In the opinion, the Court said that the lookback period for dischargeability was a limitations period subject to "traditional equitable tolling principles." The Court cited as "hornbook law" that limitations periods are subject to equitable tolling unless such tolling is inconsistent with the statute. The Court said that Congress enacted these limitations with the understanding that tolling might apply, and this reasoning would be particularly true in bankruptcy, itself an equitable court. The taxpayers attempted to construct an argument, as the Government had in Brockamp, that the statute evidenced Congress' intent not to allow equitable tolling, but the Court simply rejected the argument.
Can you articulate a principled distinction between Brockamp and Young? In Brockamp, of course, the taxpayer was not trying to game the system. In Young, although the Supreme Court said it was not necessary to look at the taxpayer's intent in the back-to-back filings, it was clear that the taxpayers were gaming the system. Are statute of limitations are heads the Government wins, tails the taxpayer loses? Do bad cases really create bad law?
Return to Townsend & Jones, L.L.P. HomePage