Podcasts about mazars usa

On this day in legal history, October 3, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, marked a shift in U.S. immigration policy. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the act abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been in place since the 1920s and favored immigration from Western and Northern Europe. This change came during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and was seen as a step toward ending racially discriminatory immigration policies. The act introduced a seven-category preference system that prioritized family reunification, professionals with specialized skills, and refugees.Before the 1965 act, U.S. immigration policy was heavily skewed towards preserving American homogeneity. Laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1924 had been enacted to limit immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe. The 1965 act was a response to both domestic and international pressures to end such discriminatory practices. It received bipartisan support, although there was notable opposition from Southern Democrats.For the first time, the act also set a numerical limit on immigration from the Western Hemisphere, capping it at 120,000 per annum. The immediate effect of the act was a diversification of the immigrant population in the U.S., with increased numbers coming from Asia, Africa, and Eastern and Southern Europe. Despite its progressive steps, the act did not fully eliminate discrimination; for instance, members of the LGBTQ+ community were still denied entry on the grounds of being "mentally defective" until the Immigration Act of 1990.The act was signed into law at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, symbolically ending preferences for white immigrants that dated back to the 18th century. It laid the groundwork for the multicultural society that the United States is today, although it was not without its critics and limitations.Kirkland & Ellis, the world's leading law firm in terms of revenue, has set a new record by promoting 205 attorneys to partnership, effective October 1. This marks the sixth consecutive year the firm has broken its own record, with 193 lawyers promoted last year and 151 the year before that. Over the past decade, the size of the firm's partnership class has surged by more than 156%, growing from 80 new partners in 2013 to over 200 in 2023. The firm, founded in Chicago, reported a gross revenue of $6.5 billion in 2022 and profits per equity partner exceeding $7.5 million. Kirkland & Ellis also maintains a large tier of nonequity partners, distinguishing it as the most successful firm with such a structure.Kirkland & Ellis Promotes the Largest Class Ever to PartnershipX Corp., formerly known as Twitter Inc., is facing a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by X Social Media LLC in a Florida federal court. The lawsuit alleges that X Corp. was aware of X Social Media's pre-existing rights to the "X" trademark before undergoing a rebranding campaign in July, led by owner Elon Musk. The rebranding has caused confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that X Social Media is associated with X Corp., according to the complaint. The name change is said to be "financially and strategically harmful" to X Social Media, which claims to have already lost revenue due to the rebranding.Founded in 2015, X Social Media specializes in connecting law firms with clients through social media platforms. The company has invested over $2 million in building its brand and owns the federal trademark registration for "X SocialMedia," which it has used continuously for five years. The letter "X" in its name symbolizes the "beginning of a life-changing journey towards justice," according to the company.X Social Media sent a cease-and-desist letter to X Corp. in August, but the latter refused to comply. X Corp. has also applied for seven trademark registrations with the US Patent and Trademark Office. The lawsuit against X Corp. is not an isolated incident; other tech companies have faced similar legal challenges following rebranding efforts. For example, Meta Platforms Inc.'s 2021 name change from Facebook led to multiple lawsuits, including from a VR company and a blockchain group. Similarly, Block Inc., formerly Square, settled a trademark dispute with H&R Block Inc. earlier this year.Musk's X Corp. Sued Over Trademark by Legal Marketing Firm (1)Elon Musk's X hit with trademark lawsuit from marketing agency | ReutersThe civil fraud trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, with the state's Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump of generating over $100 million through fraudulent means related to his real estate empire. James is seeking at least $250 million in fines and a permanent ban on Trump and his sons from running businesses in New York. The case revolves around allegations that Trump inflated the value of his assets and net worth between 2011 and 2021 to secure favorable bank loans and lower insurance premiums.Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, calling the case a "scam" and a "sham," and accusing James and the presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, of political bias. Engoron is hearing the case without a jury and last week found Trump and his companies liable for fraud, including inflating the value of assets like Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago. The trial will also review six additional claims, including falsifying business records and insurance fraud.The state's first witness was Donald Bender, a partner at Mazars USA and a longtime accountant for Trump's businesses. Bender testified that he relied on information provided by Trump and his companies when compiling Trump's personal financial statements. More than 150 people, including Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal lawyer, could testify in the trial, which is expected to run through early December.Trump's legal team countered that his financials were entirely legal and that there was no intent to defraud. They argued that disagreements over asset valuations do not necessarily constitute fraud. This trial is one of several legal challenges Trump is currently facing, including criminal charges in Washington, Georgia, Florida, and New York for various alleged offenses. Trump has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty in all cases.Trump reaped over $100 million through fraud, New York says as trial starts | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Former President Bill Clinton agreed with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Saturday by arguing that New York City's "Right to Shelter Law" must be changed. Former President Donald Trump has left the New York County Supreme Court in lower Manhattan after day one of the $250 million civil case against him. Donald Bender, a former accountant at Mazars USA, the firm that for years handled Trump's taxes was first to be called to the stand.   Monday - 10/2/2023 - Hour 3See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jason Pourakis and Ryan Berdnik of Mazars USA discuss best practices for negotiating with your customers, and let you know the cues that signal when it's best to walk away from the negotiating table. For more information on the Linen, Uniform & Facility Services Podcast: Interviews & Insights by TRSA, visit www.trsa.org/podcasts.

This episode is sponsored by Mazars USA.   As Microsoft and other large technology firms accelerate their AI-related roadmaps, businesses have no choice but to reckon with how different technology will impact their employees, customers, and partners. Some AI tools will be relatively easy to deploy, like prebuilt capabilities coming to Microsoft Dynamics 365 apps via Copilot. Other uses of AI will require greater investment, carry different risk profiles, and raise new ethical, regulatory, and governance question.    Ivan Cole, managing director at Mazars USA about AI adoption in the Microsoft space, joins us to these topics and expand on some of the points he and his colleague, Microsoft MVP Chris Segurado, raised in a recent webcast for the MSDW audience about adoption and momentum of AI in the Dynamics space.   As Ivan explains, all artificial intelligence isn't created equal. With the popularity of generative AI, we are seeing a tendency for people to confuse it with other capabilities like machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP). Ivan explains how he untangles some of these fundamentals and shares his outlook on why an AI framework helps guide businesses in their approach to the various technologies.   Show Notes: 2:30 - What do people understand well about AI today and where do they need education? 6:00 - How to harness an organization's enthusiasm to take advantage of AI capabililties in the Microsoft space 12:30 - How AI's implementation could change specific roles in organizations 16:00 - Looking for AI solutions that extend beyond what Microsoft offers out of the box 18:30 - What it means to enable security and guardrails for AI adoption 22:00 - Why organizations need to make rapid progress on their AI governance policies   More from Mazars: With Mazars' SAFE AI FrameworkTM as your guide, you can confidently embrace your organization's future with AI. Journey with Mazars and discover AI's enormous potential, while ensuring its use aligns with best practices for security, adaptability, factual integrity and ethics. Learn more about SAFE AI Framework. 

Tax practitioner Tifphani White-King is strongly invested in increasing diversity and equity in the world of tax. "I don't lose sight of the fact that I don't see many people that look like me in this field," she said. White-King, principal at Mazars USA, has over two decades of experience in tax, and as a Black woman, has extensive experience navigating a historically white male-dominated profession to become a leader in tax. She chatted with Bloomberg Tax reporter Jeff Leon to share more about her experiences in the profession, lessons learned, and being a woman of color in tax. White-King shares insights on how tax organizations can meaningfully level the playing field and embrace the strength of a diverse workforce, and where she sees the tax profession going. Do you have feedback on this episode of Talking Tax? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

Moderated by Bonnie Mann Falk, Quality Control Partner in Berdon, the part of this Conference includes experts in corporate cost and quality management. They include Ahava Goldman, Associate Director of AICPA, Jeff Rapaglia, Partner of FORVIS and member of ASB, and Wendy Stevens, Partner in Mazars USA and Board Member of IAASB.

Carla slips on the winter Mid-West ice and falls. She's rescued by her daughter and son-in-law. The spectacular Super Bowl LVI brought memorable moments, a major victory for the Rams,  especially Cooper Kupp, Aaron Donald and Matthew Stafford. There was plenty of controversy. The dazzling Half-Time Show with Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, and Eminem brought nostalgia and equal time, but not everyone approved. Whiteness reacted with its predictable backlash all over Twitter and conservative media.  The NFL is dealing with a serious PR problem with reference to race.  The accounting firm for the Trump organization, Mazars USA, announces: "You're fired!" - disassociating themselves from their major client and disavowing the past ten years of financial statements. Carla introduces the concept of "generational criminality." National treasure Ken Burns issues a warning for America. Carla shares her love for a novel about FDR and Lucy Mercer by Ellen Feldman simply called "Lucy." Ken finishes with a story about an NYT journalist and an ice fisherman in Ukraine - a nation in crisis.Support the show (http://thebeachedwhitemale.com)

Donald Trump's longtime accountants have suddenly severed all ties with the former president and his business — quitting while in the midst of preparing his and Melania Trump's tax returns. In a letter made public Monday by New York's attorney general, Letitia James, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, told the Trump Organization's top corporate lawyer it had stepped away from Trump and his business because of questions about the reliability of key company financial statements.   State Judge Arthur F. Engoron rejected Trump's request to nullify subpoenas from the state attorney general and ordered him to turn over subpoenaed documents to Attorney General Letitia James within 14 days. Trump and his children must appear for a deposition within 21 days. Judge Engoron wrote that a refusal to subpoena Trump "would have been blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft-repeated campaign promise)." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Donald Trump's longtime accountants have suddenly severed all ties with the former president and his business — quitting while in the midst of preparing his and Melania Trump's tax returns. In a letter made public Monday by New York's attorney general, Letitia James, the accounting firm, Mazars USA, told the Trump Organization's top corporate lawyer it had stepped away from Trump and his business because of questions about the reliability of key company financial statements.   State Judge Arthur F. Engoron rejected Trump's request to nullify subpoenas from the state attorney general and ordered him to turn over subpoenaed documents to Attorney General Letitia James within 14 days. Trump and his children must appear for a deposition within 21 days. Judge Engoron wrote that a refusal to subpoena Trump "would have been blatant dereliction of duty (and would have broken an oft-repeated campaign promise)." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

15 de febrero | San Juan, ArgentinaHola, maricoper. Ayer estuve paseando en kayak en uno de los diques de mi provincia. El azul del cielo y el reflejo en el agua hacen una combinación preciosa con el paisaje montañoso. Tengo pruebas:Bienvenido a La Wikly diaria, una columna de actualidad y dos titulares rápidos para pasar el resto del día bien informado. Si quieres comentar las noticias en nuestra comunidad de Discord, rellena este formulario para que te demos acceso completo a los canales exclusivos para suscriptores.Si te han mandado esta newsletter, suscríbete por solo 5 euros al mes para estar informado toda la semana:Leer esta newsletter te llevará 6 minutos y 2 segundos.Te entendemos, manager de Kanye. Bienvenido a La Wikly.

This week on the CAFE Insider podcast, Barb McQuade guest co-hosts with Joyce Vance while Preet is traveling. Barb served as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017. She is now a CAFE contributor, a law professor at the University of Michigan law school, and a legal analyst for NBC News & MSNBC. In this sample from the episode, Joyce and Barb discuss the reports that former President Donald Trump took classified documents to Mar-a-Lago instead of giving them to the National Archives, as required by the Presidential Records Act. They also break down Trump's potential criminal liability for taking the documents, and the national security concerns surrounding mishandling classified materials. In the full episode, Joyce and Barb discuss:  – The decision by Trump's long-time accounting firm, Mazars USA, to cut ties with him in response to the New York Attorney General's ongoing investigation into the Trump Organization; and – The latest January 6th Committee developments, including the ongoing battle to compel John Eastman, the author of a memo outlining methods for Trump to overturn the election results, to comply with a subpoena, and reports that Rudy Giuliani is in communication with the committee. Stay informed. For insight into the most important issues of our time, try the membership free for two weeks: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive benefits. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network.  REFERENCES & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:  44 U.S. Code Chapter 22, Presidential Records 18 U.S. Code §1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant 18 U.S. Code §1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material 18 U.S. Code §2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

--On the Show: --Russia reports that it is pulling some troops back from the Ukrainian border while Ukraine remains skeptical --Donald Trump's former "fraud" lawyer Sidney Powell admits that maybe none of her claims are true --Republicans have been meeting in private to question Donald Trump's power over their party --A judge has thrown out Sarah Palin's defamation lawsuit against the New York Times, but this doesn't stop Fox News from calling it a victory for Palin --As expected, Donald Trump is backing "big lie" candidates in important election-related positions for 2022 --Donald Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, bails on Trump and says the last decade of financial documents cannot be trusted --MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is back on Steve Bannon's show, once again claiming that many states are about to "decertify" their 2020 election results, which is not true --Radical Republican Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is awarded a misspelled award for "Hottest Woman in Congress," along with a gift card to Red Lobster --Voicemail caller asks a confused but sort of okay question about nutrition, big pharma, and medicine --On the Bonus Show: Democrats getting anxious for Biden to make SCOTUS pick, Jewish student reprimanded for revealing class' Nazi salute, the questionable "organic cotton" movement, much more...

Donald Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

In our new episode of the Congressional Investigations 101 podcast, we welcome back Andy Wright, a partner in our U.S. Congressional Investigations and Public Policy and Law practices, after his brief hiatus to work on a project for President Biden. Andy discusses Congress’ investigative priorities and the impact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Mazars USA may have on congressional investigations of private parties moving forward.

In our new episode of the Congressional Investigations 101 podcast, we welcome back Andy Wright, a partner in our U.S. Congressional Investigations and Public Policy and Law practices, after his brief hiatus to work on a project for President Biden. Andy discusses Congress’ investigative priorities and the impact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Mazars USA may have on congressional investigations of private parties moving forward.

This week we interviewed Bruce Richman, the Senior Advisor of Business Valuations Advisory Services at Mazars USA LLP. Bruce's practice at Mazars includes business valuations, mergers and acquisitions, and financial and tax consulting. Bruce oversees national and international valuation and forensic/litigation assignments for both private equity sponsors and individual corporate owners.   Bruce has a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, a Master of Science in Accounting from The Ohio State University, a Master of Business Administration in International Business from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, and a Master of Science in Taxation from Bentley College.  On this episode, we discuss with Bruce the importance of continued learning throughout a career and how to use active listening. Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/2Sr9epOU9VY Introduction music by:  LAKEY INSPIRED - Chill Day LAKEY INSPIRED - Chill Day  Download→ https://soundcloud.com/lakeyinspired/chill-day

The last day to apply for funding under the Paycheck Protection Program is August 8. But that's when things will get busy for people like Michael Rofman. He’s a partner and leader of the New Jersey Transportation & Logistics practice at the national accounting firm of Mazars USA. Michael has been working with clients for months now who have gotten money or tried to get money out of the Paycheck Protection Program. Join Drilling Deep host John Kingston this week as Michael Rofman talks about how he views the success of the PPP program and what the forgiveness process might be like.  Micahel will discuss that process which is expected to kick off next week.Kingston will talk about the announcement this past week that two U.S. refineries will close, an infrequent event. How is this going to impact the supply of diesel?Please join us on Drilling Deep.More FreightWaves podcastsApple PodcastsSpotify

The last day to apply for funding under the Paycheck Protection Program is August 8. But that's when things will get busy for people like Michael Rofman. He’s a partner and leader of the New Jersey Transportation & Logistics practice at the national accounting firm of Mazars USA. Michael has been working with clients for months now who have gotten money or tried to get money out of the Paycheck Protection Program. Join Drilling Deep host John Kingston this week as Michael Rofman talks about how he views the success of the PPP program and what the forgiveness process might be like.  Micahel will discuss that process which is expected to kick off next week.Kingston will talk about the announcement this past week that two U.S. refineries will close, an infrequent event. How is this going to impact the supply of diesel?Please join us on Drilling Deep.More FreightWaves podcastsApple PodcastsSpotify

The words “executive privilege” are not found in the Constitution, but some form of presidential secrecy has been asserted by presidents from George Washington onward. The Supreme Court’s latest term ended with major decisions in two cases involving executive privilege: Trump v. Mazars USA, involving subpoenas from the House of Representatives; and Trump v. Vance, […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/executive-privilege-a-discussion-with-dean-mark-rozell/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

The words “executive privilege” are not found in the Constitution, but some form of presidential secrecy has been asserted by presidents from George Washington onward. The Supreme Court's latest term ended with major decisions in two cases involving executive privilege: Trump v. Mazars USA, involving subpoenas from the House of Representatives; and Trump v. Vance, involving subpoenas from a New... Source

May grand juries or congressional oversight committees obtain the personal tax records and other financial information about the President, even from third parties? This is the question presented in Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance, two cases decided today by the Supreme Court, and discussed in today’s Courthouse Steps Teleforum call. Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results in these cases and the implications on separation of powers and the future of the presidency.Featuring:-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

May grand juries or congressional oversight committees obtain the personal tax records and other financial information about the President, even from third parties? This is the question presented in Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance, two cases decided today by the Supreme Court, and discussed in today’s Courthouse Steps Teleforum call. Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results in these cases and the implications on separation of powers and the future of the presidency.Featuring:-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the United States House of Representatives subpoenas to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, which Trump has litigated to prevent but which had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a 7–2 decision issued in July 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court's decision, asserting that the court had not properly assessed the separation of powers between Congress and the President, and remanded the case for review with a set of considerations to evaluate the worthiness of the subpoena request. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Former National Young Republican Chair and GOP National Committeewoman for Maryland Nicolee Ambrose on the Supreme Court sided with Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, whose grand jury subpoenas sought documents from accounting firm Mazars USA and the Trump Organization, including President Trump's tax returns. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, on the final day of its term, handed down the two big subpoena cases: Trump v. Vance, in which the president tried to beat back a subpoena from a New York grand jury, and Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, in which the president tried to beat back a congressional subpoena for his financial records. He didn't entirely succeed in either case, but he made some headway in the Mazars case. To discuss it all, Benjamin Wittes spoke with Lawfare's Margaret Taylor, Scott Anderson, Quinta Jurecic and Molly Reynolds. They talked about whether the president has a path forward before the New York grand jury, and what the cryptic decision in Mazars portends, both for Trump and for the executive-legislative oversight relationship.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the United States House of Representatives subpoenas to obtain the tax returns of President Donald Trump, which Trump has litigated to prevent but which had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a 7–2 decision issued in July 2020, the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's decision, asserting that the court had not properly assessed the separation of powers between Congress and the President, and remanded the case for review with a set of considerations to evaluate the worthiness of the subpoena request. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Three cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the President’s tax records. In Trump v. Vance, a local grand jury has subpoenaed these tax documents as well. There are several issues at play in determining if these subpoenas are valid. Starting with the Congressional subpoenas, the President claims that these subpoenas are for information protected under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosure of a customer's financial records to "any Government authority" without certain procedures the committees concede they did not follow; but the committees claim that they are not a “Government authority” under the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the President claims the Internal Revenue Code, which allows disclosure but only with procedural requirements the committees admit that they have not done. But the committees claim this requirement only applies if the bank acquired the tax documents from the IRS. Third, the President claims there is no legitimate legislative purpose to the subpoena which is required for such a legislative subpoena. The committees note that although that requirement exists, the scope of what is within a proper legislative purpose is very broad and met in this case.The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.As to the local New York grand jury subpoena, the President claims that he is absolutely immune from all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre-indictment investigation.Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results of the Supreme Court oral argument on these cases. Featuring:-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Three cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the President’s tax records. In Trump v. Vance, a local grand jury has subpoenaed these tax documents as well. There are several issues at play in determining if these subpoenas are valid. Starting with the Congressional subpoenas, the President claims that these subpoenas are for information protected under the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which prohibits disclosure of a customer's financial records to "any Government authority" without certain procedures the committees concede they did not follow; but the committees claim that they are not a “Government authority” under the meaning of the Act. Secondly, the President claims the Internal Revenue Code, which allows disclosure but only with procedural requirements the committees admit that they have not done. But the committees claim this requirement only applies if the bank acquired the tax documents from the IRS. Third, the President claims there is no legitimate legislative purpose to the subpoena which is required for such a legislative subpoena. The committees note that although that requirement exists, the scope of what is within a proper legislative purpose is very broad and met in this case.The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.As to the local New York grand jury subpoena, the President claims that he is absolutely immune from all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre-indictment investigation.Devin Watkins of the Competitive Enterprise Institute will join us to discuss the results of the Supreme Court oral argument on these cases. Featuring:-- Mr. Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute

19-715 TRUMP V. MAZARS USA, LLP The Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has issued a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities. The subpoena demands private financial records belonging to the President. The D.C. Circuit upheld the subpoena as having a legitimate legislative purpose and being within the statutory authority of the Committee. The question presented is: Whether the Committee has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this subpoena. 19-760 TRUMP V. DEUTSCHE BANK AG The Question Presented is: Whether three committees of the House of Representatives had the constitutional and statutory authority to issue subpoenas to third-party custodians for the personal records of the sitting President of the United States. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

Three cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the President’s tax records. In Trump v. Vance, a local grand jury has subpoenaed these tax documents as well. There are several issues at play in determining if these subpoenas are valid. The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.To discuss the case, we have Devin Watkins, Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Three cases before the Supreme Court consider the ability of grand juries and congressional committees to subpoena the personal tax records of the President. In Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Deutsche Bank, three House committees subpoenaed the President’s tax records. In Trump v. Vance, a local grand jury has subpoenaed these tax documents as well. There are several issues at play in determining if these subpoenas are valid. The Supreme Court has also asked the parties to brief whether these congressional subpoenas are the kind of dispute between the branches that the court should avoid.To discuss the case, we have Devin Watkins, Attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Sam hosts Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser to discuss the 2020 Supreme Court term, including Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, Trump v. Vance, and what we can expect from the court going forward. We're live at noon EST. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com Check out the Brand New Majority Report Merch Shop https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ (Merch issues and concerns can be addressed here: majorityreportstore@mirrorimage.com) The AM Quickie is now on YouTube Subscribe to the AM Quickie at https://fans.fm/amquickie Make the AMQ part of your Alexa Flash Briefing too! You can now watch the livestream on Twitch Check out today's sponsor: sunsetlakecbd is a majority employee-owned farm in Vermont, producing 100% pesticide-free CBD products. Great company, great product, and fans of the show! Use code leftisbest and get 20% off at sunsetlakecbd.com Magic Spoon is a new cereal company that’s discovered a way to recreate your favorite childhood cereals with 0 sugar, 12 grams of protein, and only 3 net grams of carbs in each serving. Go to magicspoon.com/majorityreport to grab a variety pack and try it today, and use promo code MAJORITYREPORT at checkout to get free shipping. BetterHelp is giving our audience 10% off their first month when you go to https://www.betterhelp.com/majorityreport. A lot of therapists elsewhere have long waitlists and it can take weeks or months before they can see you… But when you sign up with BetterHelp, they match you with a therapist based on your specific needs, and you’ll be communicating with them in less than 24 hours. Buy Michael Brooks’ book Against the Web at Red Emma’s. Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.substack.com/ Subscribe to AM Quickie writer Corey Pein’s newsletter at theend.substack.com Check out The Michael Brooks Show at patreon.com/tmbs and Michael Brooks Show on YouTube and the new TMBS website, TMBS.FM Check out The Nomiki Show at patreon.com/thenomikishow Check out Matt’s podcast, Literary Hangover, at Patreon.com/LiteraryHangover, or on iTunes. Check out Jamie’s podcast, The Antifada, at patreon.com/theantifada, on iTunes, or at twitch.tv/theantifada Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @_michaelbrooks @MattLech @jamie_elizabeth @BF1nn https://youtu.be/UvVHFNNMQxo

David and Sarah discuss 'unmasking' and Michael Flynn, Supreme Court oral arguments over the president's financial records and "faithless electors," and Wisconsin administrative law.Show Notes:-The Flynn case isn’t over until the judge says it’s over-Transcript of Michael Flynn sentencing proceedings-Trump v. Vance oral argument transcript-Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP oral argument transcript-Colorado Dept. of State v. Baca oral argument transcript-Chiafalo v. Washington oral argument transcript-Wisconsin Supreme Court blocks statewide lockdown

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Constitution prohibits subpoenas issued to Donald Trump’s accounting firm requiring it to provide non-privileged financial records relating to Trump and certain of his businesses.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP | 05/12/20 | Docket #: 19-715

On May 12, after a six-week delay caused by the pandemic, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the epic battle by congressional committees and New York prosecutors to pry loose eight years of President Donald Trump’s tax returns. Much about the case is without precedent. Oral arguments will be publicly broadcast on live audio. The nine justices and opposing lawyers will debate the issues remotely, from their offices and homes. And the central question is extraordinary: Is the president of the United States immune from congressional — and even criminal — investigation? The arguments concern whether Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, must hand over his tax returns and other records to a House committee and the Manhattan district attorney, which have separately subpoenaed them. (There will also be arguments on congressional subpoenas to two of Trump’s banks.) Trump’s accountants have been crucial enablers in his remarkable rise. And like their marquee client, they have a surprisingly colorful and tangled story of their own. It’s dramatically at odds with the image Trump has presented of his accountants as “one of the most highly respected” big firms, solemnly confirming his numbers after months of careful scrutiny. For starters, it’s only technically true to say Trump’s accounting work is handled by a large firm. In fact, Trump entrusts his taxes and planning to a tiny, secretive team of CPAs who have operated at various times from humble quarters in Queens and two Long Island office parks. That team, which has had two leaders with back-to-back multidecade terms, has been working for the Trumps since Fred Trump began using the firm back in the 1950s. It was eventually subsumed into Mazars USA, the American arm of a large international firm, through a series of mergers over decades. One theme has been consistent: partners and sometimes the firm itself have faced accusations of fraud, misconduct, and malpractice on multiple occasions, an investigation by ProPublica and WNYC has found. This story was co-published with ProPublica; visit their website to read Peter Elkind's full text story on President Trump's relationship with his accounting firm. Stay up to date with email updates about our investigations into the president’s business practices.

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases: These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case 4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The case that may determine if former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress – about whether President Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation – is being argued on appeal tomorrow, January 3rd. And, three other cases concerning requests for President Trump’s financial records – issued by Congress and, separately, by a New York State grand jury – will be heard by the Supreme Court in early 2020. All of these cases involve subpoenas – written orders compelling an individual or organization to produce evidence or to testify – and raise important questions about the power of Congress and the states to investigate the president and his aides. Guests Steve Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law and Andy Grewal of Iowa Law join host Jeffrey Rosen to explain all four cases: These three cases will be heard by the Supreme Court in March 2020: Trump v. Mazars: The House Committee on Oversight and Reform issued a subpoena requesting that President Trump’s accounting firm Mazars USA turn over financial records of President Trump and several of his business entities. The committee states that it's investigating whether and how to legislate on presidential financial disclosure requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the committee’s subpoena is valid. Trump v. Deutsche Bank: The House Committee on Financial Services and the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas requesting that President Trump’s creditors, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, release documents related to President Trump’s, his family’s, and his business’s finances. The committees state that they’re investigating whether and how to legislate on the practices of financial institutions and potential presidential conflicts of interest. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. In this case and Mazars, the Trump administration is arguing (among other things) that the subpoenas exceed the committees’ powers and do not serve a “legitimate legislative interest.” Trump v. Vance: Cyrus Vance, district attorney of the County of New York, issued a state of New York grand jury subpoena requesting nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns for an inquiry into whether the President or his businesses violated New York law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the subpoenas. This case differs from the other two because the subpoena was issued by a state, not federal, authority. The McGahn case 4.Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II: The House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena calling for former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the committee on whether President Trump obstructed justice in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that McGahn must testify, and the Trump administration’s appeal of that decision will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia tomorrow. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

This week the first Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, came out for impeaching Trump. While Trump allies sought to attack and punish Amash to avoid further defections, momentum grew among the House Democratic caucus for impeachment hearings. Feeling the pressure Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended staying focused on policy, but directly attacked Trump for a “cover-up,” leading Trump to storm out of a scheduled meeting with Democratic leaders, saying he refused to work with them until they stop investigating him. The two leaders publicly battled, as altered videos of Pelosi appeared online, a redux of false attacks on Hillary Clinton's mental acumen used in 2016. In authoritarian-type moves, Trump granted his attorney general alarming powers to investigate the investigators. Trump bypassed Congress, invoking a national emergency again to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, and “joked” about serving up to five terms in office. Trump continued to stonewall House oversight as Trump prevented Don McGahn from testifying, and appealed rulings thwarting his efforts to block the release of financial documents from Mazars USA and Deutsche Bank. Read the full list here: https://theweeklylist.org/weekly-list/week-132/

Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance. Today, in Episode 45 we celebrate our newest addition to the Everything Compliance gang; Sarah Hadden. Sarah is the Publisher at Corporate Compliance Insights, taking the helm from founder Maurice Gilbert earlier this year. She is a journalist by profession and has been working in the compliance space, largely at CCI for the past six years. She brings a wealth of talent, knowledge and perspective to our happy band of commentators and help us to 'drink the Kool-Aid.    Sarah Hadden discusses experiential learning. She uses that as a basis to consider what is effective training and how interactive training can lead to a new level of not simply effectiveness but awareness to recency bias which can cloud decision making. Sarah shouts out to internet service providers everywhere who were able to make the Mueller report available as soon as it was released.Matt Kelly discusses best practices around disclosing reporting data and using interactive technologies to improve Codes of Conduct, compliance policies and procedures. Matt rants on former White House Ethics Counsel, Stefan Passantino who urged Mazars USA not to comply with a subpoena that House Oversight Committee issued for Trump’s financial documents. That is ethics for you in TrumpWorld.Jay Rosen talks about repositioning compliance as a business generator. He discusses companies which see compliance as a business advantage and details how they do so. Jay shouts out to former White House counsel Don McGahn for being a “real lawyer” because he takes notes.Tom Fox, sitting in on this episode, uses the top three FCPA settlements of 2019 (MTS, Cognizant and Fresenius) to illustrate how the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, announced in 2017 is being used in practice. He compares the three different types of resolutions used by the Justice Department and what it might mean for compliance going forward. Tom rants about Charles Van Doren and the quiz show scandals from the late 1950s.The members of the Everything Compliance panelist are:Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.comMike Volkov– One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.Matt Kelly– Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.comJonathan Armstrong–is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.comSarah Hadden– the newest addition to our panel. Sarah is the Publisher at Corporate Compliance Insights. Hadden can be reached at Sarah@corporatecomplianceinsights.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the only roundtable podcast in compliance. Today, in Episode 45 we celebrate our newest addition to the Everything Compliance gang; Sarah Hadden. Sarah is the Publisher at Corporate Compliance Insights, taking the helm from founder Maurice Gilbert earlier this year. She is a journalist by profession and has been working in the compliance space, largely at CCI for the past six years. She brings a wealth of talent, knowledge and perspective to our happy band of commentators and help us to 'drink the Kool-Aid.    Sarah Hadden discusses experiential learning. She uses that as a basis to consider what is effective training and how interactive training can lead to a new level of not simply effectiveness but awareness to recency bias which can cloud decision making. Sarah shouts out to internet service providers everywhere who were able to make the Mueller report available as soon as it was released.Matt Kelly discusses best practices around disclosing reporting data and using interactive technologies to improve Codes of Conduct, compliance policies and procedures. Matt rants on former White House Ethics Counsel, Stefan Passantino who urged Mazars USA not to comply with a subpoena that House Oversight Committee issued for Trump’s financial documents. That is ethics for you in TrumpWorld.Jay Rosen talks about repositioning compliance as a business generator. He discusses companies which see compliance as a business advantage and details how they do so. Jay shouts out to former White House counsel Don McGahn for being a “real lawyer” because he takes notes.Tom Fox, sitting in on this episode, uses the top three FCPA settlements of 2019 (MTS, Cognizant and Fresenius) to illustrate how the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy, announced in 2017 is being used in practice. He compares the three different types of resolutions used by the Justice Department and what it might mean for compliance going forward. Tom rants about Charles Van Doren and the quiz show scandals from the late 1950s.The members of the Everything Compliance panelist are:Jay Rosen– Jay is Vice President, Business Development Corporate Monitoring at Affiliated Monitors. Rosen can be reached at JRosen@affiliatedmonitors.comMike Volkov– One of the top FCPA commentators and practitioners around and the Chief Executive Officer of The Volkov Law Group, LLC. Volkov can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlawgroup.com.Matt Kelly– Founder and CEO of Radical Compliance. Kelly can be reached at mkelly@radicalcompliance.comJonathan Armstrong–is our UK colleague, who is an experienced lawyer with Cordery in London. Armstrong can be reached at armstrong@corderycompliance.comSarah Hadden– the newest addition to our panel. Sarah is the Publisher at Corporate Compliance Insights. Hadden can be reached at Sarah@corporatecomplianceinsights.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

-Dem’s shouldn’t rollback GOP senate rule-change, if they ever take back power -More Oversight Cmte subpoenas: Mueller report order passed, Mazars USA order coming -Most Americans don’t believe in Have/have-not divide, though that will go up when the next recession hits -FDA investigating vaping teens on some bullshit but who cares subscribe at Patreon.com/DistrictSentinel

You've heard all the promise about cloud computing, but is it right for your company? Are there some business that shouldn't do it? We answered your cloud computing questions in my conversation with Cary Jasgur, CBCP, MBCI, PMP who is the Consulting Manager for Organizational Resilience at Mazars USA. He helps organizations of all sizes migrate to the cloud.

Our guest today is Jonah Gruda, a Tax Partner at the accounting firm Mazars USA, LLP. In this episode, we discuss a wide range of tax-related topics relevant to independent professionals. We cover differences between various structures including LLC, S-corp, and C-corp. Before our conversation, I thought LLC was the obvious choice for most independent professionals, but Jonah made me realize that there are many factors that go into the equation and you really want to sit down with a professional to figure out what structure is right for your situation. We discuss bookkeeping, how to hire a subcontractor, various deductions to keep in mind, and nexus issues you want to be aware of. We also discuss the implications of the new tax law: the short answer there is that it is going to take some time for the IRS to issue guidance to resolve some of the ambiguous or even contradictory aspects of the law. To get in touch with Jonah, you can visit www.mazarsusa.com. Here is a link for Jonah's contact info:  http://mazarsusa.com/about-us/our-people/jonah-gruda/ I hope this episode answers some questions you may have about the tax side of running your own firm, and raises awareness of important points that maybe were not top of mind.  

PODCAST | Private Client Services June 12, 2017 Logan Cohen | Co-founder and Co-CEO of Küdzoo Michelle Kushner | Mazars USA… The post Mazars Private Client Services for NextGen: Thinking Outside of the Box, Episode 1 appeared first on The Ledger - Mazars USA.