Takeda Lawsuit Lawsuits is the backbone of the Takeda Oral surgeon Firm. In essence, Takeda oral surgeons provide expert witness and legal support in a variety of Federal, State and Common Lawsuits. The Firm provides its clients with the latest litigation services, litigation research and litigation assistance, in addition to legal document review and advice.
The firm has represented and provided outstanding service to businesses and individuals as their attorney of choice in matters involving: mergers and acquisitions, contract disputes, employee-management litigation, commercial disputes, insurance claims, and commercial litigation throughout the United States. As a result, the Takeda Oral surgeon Firm enjoys a strong reputation throughout the country.
Takeda Lawsuit Against the IRS
One such case involves a Federal Tax Lawsuit filed by the Estate of Dr. David R. Takeda, an oral surgeon, against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Dr. Takeda’s wife suffered a stroke resulting in a permanent partial loss of speech. She was not receiving treatment for the loss of speech, as required by her doctors and had stopped taking certain medications previously approved by the Internal Revenue Service. When the doctors advised her of the possibility of a lawsuit, she did not pursue the claim. She signed a Power of Attorney to a Law Firm of Takeda that allowed the Firm to file the suit on her behalf.
The Internal Revenue Service claimed liability, and the suit was subsequently filed against the firm.
In response, the firm vigorously asserts its innocence, vigorously opposed the claim, and ultimately lost the case. The Internal Revenue Service finally agreed to a settlement involving liability and a revised settlement schedule for the tax liability.
Although the terms of the settlement are confidential, we believe the facts can be shared in this litigation. Specifically, we focus on the role played by the Takeda Lawsuit Attorneys during the course of this litigation.
At all relevant times the Takeda lawsuit was filed and pursued by a team of Special Public Agents (SPAs).
At various times throughout the litigation of this team included one or more former or current IRS employees. At no time were any members of the audit committee of the Internal Revenue Service involved in the preparation of this claim or at any other time did the IRS to present any information to the lawsuit team about the claim.
One of the attorneys who reviewed the claim did express to us his belief that the Internal Revenue Service was aware that the claim was frivolous. Yet, despite this lack of knowledge, the Internal Revenue Service brought the suit in an effort to recoup funds it was due from the taxpayer.
At no time did the Takeda lawsuit assign any individual to act as a legal representative for the client or as counsel for the client.
This was consistent with the fact that Special Agents of the IRS were not associated with any client in the litigation. Further, the Internal Revenue Service failed to inform the courts or the public that it had been negotiating the return settlement with the client on an ongoing basis. These facts not only place the Takeda attorneys in a conflict of interest with the government but also with the Special Agents of the IRS who were the subject matter of the lawsuit.
When we reviewed the record in this case, we also believe that the claim should have been allowed to go forward based upon the discovery that the Internal Revenue Service had was intercepting the bank account records on which the lawsuit is based.
The attorney that was handling the case failed to alert us that discovery was occurring. The result of this failure to notify the court was the filing of a plea for dismissal on the day of the trial. Had this same attorney not allowed discovery to occur, we believe that the outcome of this case could have been different and Mr. Takeda would not have been able to pursue the recovery of overpayments to a former client.