Opinion ID: 1782322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: state income tax matters

Text: ¶ 16 In August 2007 the Department of Revenue (DOR) advised the OLR that Attorney Woods had failed to file state income tax returns and owed delinquent state income tax, state withholding tax, and state business tax registration fees to the DOR. Initially, the DOR advised the OLR that Attorney Woods' estimated tax liability totaled $430,338.80. ¶ 17 Attorney Woods responded to the OLR inquiry regarding the alleged income tax liabilities denying that he owed $430,338.80, but admitting that he had been working with an accountant to address his state withholding tax issue and his tax liability. In November 2007 the DOR reported to the OLR that Attorney Woods' tax liability was $208,478.76. ¶ 18 Based on the foregoing, the OLR alleged and the parties later stipulated that Attorney Woods violated SCR 20:8.4(f) [7] by: Failing to file Wisconsin state income tax returns with the Department of Revenue for the tax period(s) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Failing to pay income taxes to the Department of Revenue for the tax years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Failing to pay withholding taxes for the tax years 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, May through December 2001, 2002, September through December 2003, and June 2004. Failing to file withholding tax returns for 1997, 2004, 2005, 2006, and for January through June 2007. Failing to pay business tax registration fees for 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. Failing to satisfy tax warrants issued against him by the Department of Revenue for the years 1998 through 2007. ¶ 19 As part of the stipulation, Attorney Woods admitted he owes monies to the DOR, but contends the amount he owes is substantially less than what DOR claims. ¶ 20 Attorney Woods acknowledged that the stipulation was made knowingly and voluntarily and represents his admission of the misconduct charged in the disciplinary complaint and his assent to the level of discipline sought by the OLR. ¶ 21 With respect to the appropriate level of discipline, the parties agreed that a one-year suspension was appropriate and that the suspension should be imposed consecutive to Attorney Woods' current suspension imposed in July 2008. The OLR explicitly advised the court that the recommended discipline was not the result of negotiations. ¶ 22 SCR 22.12(2) provides that if this court approves a stipulation, it shall adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law and impose the stipulated discipline. SCR 22.12(3) provides that if this court rejects the stipulation, a referee will be appointed and the matter shall proceed as a complaint filed without a stipulation. ¶ 23 We adopt the stipulated facts and conclusions of law. We now turn to the recommended discipline. ¶ 24 Attorney Woods has an extensive disciplinary history. Attorney Woods' misconduct in this matter seriously compromised the legal rights of his client, D.B. Upon review of the stipulation, this court questioned whether the proposed one-year suspension was inadequate under the circumstances, particularly given Attorney Woods' extensive disciplinary history. Accordingly, this court issued an order directing the parties to justify the recommendation for discipline contained in the parties' stipulation. ¶ 25 Both parties filed written responses. The OLR provided this court with a 14-page detailed memorandum which analyzed some 11 disciplinary cases involving neglect of client matters. The OLR advised the court that typically, the misconduct alleged in this complaint would warrant a suspension in the range of 60 to 90 days. The OLR also analyzed nine disciplinary cases involving failure to file income tax returns or pay income tax liabilities. Absent his extensive disciplinary history, Attorney Woods' misconduct in this matter would likely warrant a suspension of his license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of 90 days to six months. Here, however, the OLR was mindful that Attorney Woods' previous disciplinary history is a significant aggravating factor justifying a more lengthy suspension. ¶ 26 Upon review of the OLR's statement in support of the stipulation, this court is persuaded that a one-year suspension of Attorney Woods' license to practice law in Wisconsinimposed consecutive to his current suspensionis adequate discipline for the misconduct committed in this matter. Therefore, ¶ 27 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Terrence J. Woods to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of one year, effective the date of this order. The suspension shall run consecutive to the 90-day suspension imposed by this court in OLR v. Woods, 2008 WI 79, 311 Wis.2d 213, 751 N.W.2d 840. ¶ 28 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Terrence J. Woods shall comply with the requirements of SCR 22.26 pertaining to activities following suspension if he has not already done so. ¶ 29 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 60 days of the date of this order, Terrence J. Woods shall pay to the Office of Lawyer Regulation the costs of this proceeding. If the costs are not paid within the time specified and absent a showing to this court of his inability to pay the costs within that time, the license of Terrence J. Woods to practice law in Wisconsin shall remain suspended until further order of the court.