PDA

View Full Version : Williams sisters admitted to "mis-characterizing payments for tax deduction reasons"


vogus
Dec 5th, 2006, 02:40 PM
in a Yahoo article i read, it said the sisters testified in this current trial against the Florida promoters that they had deliberately mis-characterized money paid to their father as management fees, for tax deduction reasons. What lawyer told them it was a good idea to come out and say this in court as officially recorded testimony?

The Williams had better hope the IRS isn't following the trial, or those wacky promoters could soon be the least of their legal problems.

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 02:56 PM
A few months late, huh? :lol:

I swear, certain folks are just loving
to post and re-post the same stuff that
has been posted and like this, done said
months ago!

Wonder why?
Hmmm........... :angel:

Not to mention, that is was not for
tax deduction reasons! Yet, what
do facts matter. :)

FYI, their accountants
mischaracterized
the fees.

vogus
Dec 5th, 2006, 03:17 PM
Not to mention, that is was not for
tax deduction reasons! Yet, what
do facts matter. :)

FYI, their accountants
mischaracterized
the fees.


i'm just quoting the widely distributed news article that i (and, presumably, the IRS) read. The IRS tends to take these kind of issues with rich, famous people rather seriously.

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 03:20 PM
i'm just quoting the widely distributed news article that i (and, presumably, the IRS) read. The IRS tends to take these kind of issues with rich, famous people rather seriously.

Widely distributed news that has been
posted more than three times already on
this board and something that has been
known and written about months ago.

Yet, what's one more thread on it. :cool:

Ryan
Dec 5th, 2006, 03:53 PM
Widely distributed news that has been
posted more than three times already on
this board and something that has been
known and written about months ago.

Yet, what's one more thread on it. :cool:


How about you calm down. I've never seen another thread about it, and I'm assuming vogus didn't either.

LH2HBH
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:40 PM
Maybe it's very apparant that they was an error or intentional error on their tax returns, and perhaps their lawyer advised them it would be better not to deny this in court. Certainly perjury would be worse, no?

croat123
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:44 PM
in a Yahoo article i read, it said the sisters testified in this current trial against the Florida promoters that they had deliberately mis-characterized money paid to their father as management fees, for tax deduction reasons. What lawyer told them it was a good idea to come out and say this in court as officially recorded testimony?

The Williams had better hope the IRS isn't following the trial, or those wacky promoters could soon be the least of their legal problems.
if they were asked about it, they can't lie
if their lawyer knows they are lying, he has a duty of candor and must state that they are lying

unless he's a scumbag lawyer. although he would be risking his license if anyone found out he had let a client lie in court

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:49 PM
How about you calm down. I've never seen another thread about it, and I'm assuming vogus didn't either.

How about you mind
yourself and step off.

BTW, yeah, how could anyone
miss the number of threads reporting
all this that have been on pages 1 & 2
for the past two weeks. :yawn:

cheo23
Dec 5th, 2006, 04:53 PM
How about you mind
yourself and step off.

BTW, yeah, how could anyone
miss the number of threads reporting
all this that have been on pages 1 & 2
for the past two weeks. :yawn:

:rolleyes: THERE hasn't been a "number of THREADS" reporting all this, but JUST one thread.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=274389

Martian Willow
Dec 5th, 2006, 05:00 PM
How about you mind
yourself and step off.

BTW, yeah, how could anyone
miss the number of threads reporting
all this that have been on pages 1 & 2
for the past two weeks. :yawn:

They don't police the board as obsessively as you do.

treufreund
Dec 5th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Stop jumping on vogus! I never heard this at all. Maybe you don't like the message but don't kill the messenger. I hope the girls did not do anything wrong. If they did something wrong knowingly then they may have to learn a lesson. Let's just hope things turn out well for them.

vogus
Dec 5th, 2006, 05:46 PM
I hope the girls did not do anything wrong. If they did something wrong knowingly then they may have to learn a lesson. Let's just hope things turn out well for them.


intentional tax fraud is hard to prove but it is a serious crime. Why somebody as wealthy as the Williams would possibly incriminate themselves for tax fraud in official testimony, in order to try to gain an advantage in a civil lawsuit, is just baffling to me. I guess they can try to blame their accountants for it, and who knows, maybe they can show it really was the accountants fault. But the word used, "mis-characterized" clearly suggests that tax laws were being knowingly violated by the Williams or someone working for them.

Stamp Paid
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Who said it? Venus, Serena, or both? :unsure:

vogus
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:13 PM
Who said it? Venus, Serena, or both? :unsure:


article didn't specify but i'm guessing it was their lawyer who gave this testimony on their behalf.

Wannabeknowitall
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:14 PM
Who said it? Venus, Serena, or both? :unsure:

That's what I want to know. :)
I hope Serena didn't say it. She's too fab to go to jail.

Selah
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:17 PM
Paneru, you're like Serena's pitbull :lol:

Haven't heard this either-as some have already pointed out, they better hope the IRS doesn't come knocking.

dreamgoddess099
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:27 PM
Where's the article?

vogus
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Where's the article?

On the front page of Yahoo tennis.

the article states:



"The plaintiffs' attorneys played a video clip for jurors showing Richard Williams negotiating the deal with Clarke. In the video, taken by Richard Williams, he tells Clarke that Venus and Serena are "well aware of what I am doing."
Richard Williams later testified he was lying.
Clarke said she took Williams at his word and moved forward with the event.


The sisters have testified that he has never been their manager, and didn't have the authority to commit them to such an event. Both sisters have also said they would never have agreed to play in the match.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have showed jurors copies of tax returns for the sisters and their father that show hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to Richard Williams for coaching and management fees. Attorneys for the sisters and their father claim the payments were mischaracterized for tax-deduction purposes and that Richard Williams was paid merely for coaching services."

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:50 PM
They don't police the board as obsessively as you do.

I couldn't give much of a damn about GM
unless it's about V&S. And this
is and I've seen, read, and posted,
in the threads, so step bitch. :kiss:

Their have been numerous threads
since this trial began over two
weeks ago.

Ferosh
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:50 PM
On the front page of Yahoo tennis.

the article states:



"The plaintiffs' attorneys played a video clip for jurors showing Richard Williams negotiating the deal with Clarke. In the video, taken by Richard Williams, he tells Clarke that Venus and Serena are "well aware of what I am doing."
Richard Williams later testified he was lying.
Clarke said she took Williams at his word and moved forward with the event.


The sisters have testified that he has never been their manager, and didn't have the authority to commit them to such an event. Both sisters have also said they would never have agreed to play in the match.

The plaintiffs' attorneys have showed jurors copies of tax returns for the sisters and their father that show hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to Richard Williams for coaching and management fees. Attorneys for the sisters and their father claim the payments were mischaracterized for tax-deduction purposes and that Richard Williams was paid merely for coaching services."


Not looking good at all.

Ryan
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:51 PM
How about you mind
yourself and step off.

BTW, yeah, how could anyone
miss the number of threads reporting
all this that have been on pages 1 & 2
for the past two weeks. :yawn:



How about you learn how to post properly (hint: all the way across!!!)before you tell people to mind your business when this is a PUBLIC thread. :)

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 06:55 PM
How about you learn how to post properly (hint: all the way across!!!)before you tell people to mind your business when this is a PUBLIC thread. :)

Eat my ass bitch! :lol:

Post "properly" like you do
with your uneven shit of a post?

I'll pass.
You understand. :kiss:

I'll post the way I see fit and
if you don't like it, guess what,
tough shit! ;)

Martian Willow
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Eat my ass bitch! :lol:

Post "properly" like you do
with your uneven shit of a post?

I'll pass.
You understand. :kiss:

I'll post the way I see fit and
if you don't like it, guess what,
tough shit! ;)

So why not
extend the same
courtesy to
the rest of
us? :)

Wannabeknowitall
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:05 PM
Eat my ass bitch! :lol:



For some of us, this comment would be considered a turn-on. :tape: :help:

dreamgoddess099
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:08 PM
The plaintiffs' attorneys have showed jurors copies of tax returns for the sisters and their father that show hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to Richard Williams for coaching and management fees. Attorneys for the sisters and their father claim the payments were mischaracterized for tax-deduction purposes and that Richard Williams was paid merely for coaching services."


Apparently you missed this article:

Despite video remarks, Serena Williams denies father is her manager

By Missy Diaz and Nancy Othon
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted November 30 2006

In an effort to be polite, Serena Williams listened to promoter Carol Clarke's various "get rich quick schemes," but said she never paid much attention or intended to participate in them.

Clarke and her partner, Keith Rhodes, principals in a company known as CCKR, are suing Serena, her sister Venus and their father for breach of contract over a proposed Battle of the Sexes tennis match.

Clarke, an associate of Williams' father Richard, often showed up during tennis practice at Richard Williams' home, Serena testified Wednesday during questioning by her attorney, F. Malcolm Cunningham Jr.

Clarke pitched several ideas, including selling bracelets, but Williams said a proposed Battle of the Sexes match was not one of them.

The match was to take place in 2001 between Venus and Serena and brothers John and Patrick McEnroe. Serena Williams said she was never informed about the exhibition by sports agency IMG, which represented her at the time, or by her attorney, who, according to court testimony, was in negotiations about the match with IMG.

Richard Williams has testified that he lied to Clarke when he told her his daughters had agreed to take part in the event. Whether or not Richard Williams had the authority to make commitments on the women's behalf is at the heart of the case.

His tax returns, as well as his daughters', show payments for management fees, though father and daughters have testified Richard Williams was the coach, not manager. The characterization of manager was a mistake by the tax preparer, according to the Williamses.

Serena Williams said she reviewed the tax forms before she signed them, but she did not meticulously go over every page because the print is so small, the documents were lengthy and there were lots of numbers.

"I didn't fill out the forms. I'm a tennis player, not an accountant," she said.

On Wednesday, CCKR's attorneys played a DVD that shows Serena Williams discussing the three roles her dad has played in her life: father, coach and manager.

"As a manager I think he's the best," she says in the documentary Raising Tennis Aces as she sat next to her father. "He's produced Venus and Serena Williams. What better can you do ... not only one champion but two."

Richard Williams previously testified that his daughter was joking when she referred to him as her manager but after viewing portions of the video, Serena Williams said she did not appear to be joking when she made the statement.

Serena Williams repeatedly denied ever wanting to take part in a Battle of the Sexes match or help launch the Women's Sports Zone, a Web site devoted to women's sports.

Peter Johnson, IMG's chief operating officer, testified Wednesday he was against the Battle of the Sexes idea but signed a waiver allowing Rhodes to promote the event. The waiver was needed since IMG represented the women and had exclusive rights to negotiate their exhibitions.

Johnson said he discussed the event with Richard Williams as well as Venus and Serena Williams' lawyer.

When Rhodes called Serena Williams on her cell phone to discuss the Battle of the Sexes tournament, Serena Williams said she felt harassed.

"I didn't like his tone. ... I felt violated," Serena Williams said, adding that she doesn't know how Rhodes got her cell number.

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:09 PM
So why not
extend the same
courtesy to
the rest of
us? :)

Surely you can see the difference here. ;)

Their is a difference between say what you will
and simply telling a lie. Fact is that their have
been more threads, with actual articles in them
stating this same thing since the trial began over
two weeks ago. Yet, their seems to be a need to
contiually post it in verious threads; "From the
'V&S' in Court thread to the Richard Collapses Thread
to even the V&S Exhibition in Denver Thread".

But hey, whatever, right? :cool:

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:10 PM
For some of us, this comment would be considered a turn-on. :tape: :help:

:devil: :lol:

Paneru
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Apparently you missed this article:


But ofcourse it was "missed". :angel:

The Dawntreader
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Are the girls in trouble?:eek:

Helen Lawson
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:17 PM
What they did is extremely common and certainly the result of advice from tax professionals. Who cares? You guys give people who cheat on court a pass, but some monkeybusiness on a tax return, and it's the death sentence! :rolleyes:

It probably will hurt them with the jury, though. What I think really hurts the plaintiffs' case is when Serena was rude to them and refused to talk to them and blowing off their calls. While it's certainly reasonable to think that Richard had the authority to act for them--that is the issue for the whole trial--evidence of Serena blowing you off I think would lead a reasonable person to question Richard's apparent authority. It certainly would for me. I think the jury will nail the sisters with Richard because I do think they held him out enough as their manager, etc., but the plaintiffs' damage theory looks ridiculous, entirely too speculative. I could see a verdict against the three of them, but for little to no money, and nowhere near the low 8 figures sought, I can't believe that's even being presented to the jury it's so ridiculous.

sweetpeas
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:17 PM
:mad: :devil: :tape: That"s their private life.Am only concern about their tennis? I have a hard time,taking care of my own problems!Wish them well.

Joana
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:18 PM
How about you calm down. I've never seen another thread about it, and I'm assuming vogus didn't either.

What???! :eek: How could have you missed it? I thought the lives of all of us revolved around the WS and we all spent days and nights roaming the Internet to find the news and updates on what's going on with our gurls.

Helen Lawson
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:20 PM
What???! :eek: How could have you missed it? I thought the lives of all of us revolved around the WS and we all spent days and nights roaming the Internet to find the news and updates on what's going on with our gurls.

Maybe you could tip off the Serbian tabloids of the case and they could do an article that Jelena Dokic was going to testify for the sisters in court, but got kidnapped on the way to the courthouse and was last seen in a convenient store surveillance tape buying a tomato in a tacky outfit! :D

volta
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:27 PM
For some of us, this comment would be considered a turn-on. :tape: :help:

:eek: :haha: :haha:

Joana
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Maybe you could tip off the Serbian tabloids of the case and they could do an article that Jelena Dokic was going to testify for the sisters in court, but got kidnapped on the way to the courthouse and was last seen in a convenient store surveillance tape buying a tomato in a tacky outfit! :D

Don't give them any ideas, I can already see the headlines. :tape:

dreamgoddess099
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:32 PM
While it's certainly reasonable to think that Richard had the authority to act for them

Actually the plaintiff testified that she knew that IMG were the sister's management agency, that proves she knew Richard wasn't their manager and that his signature was powerless.

Clarke testified she was aware that Venus and Serena Williams were represented by the sports management agency IMG

Helen Lawson
Dec 5th, 2006, 07:51 PM
Actually the plaintiff testified that she knew that IMG were the sister's management agency, that proves she knew Richard wasn't their manager and that his signature was powerless.

Well, what is her theory then, that Richard could tell IMG what to do? Couple that with Serena being less than cordial, who in their right mind sinks a cent into this deal without the sisters' signatures? I imagine that's the problem, these plaintiffs didn't come out of pocket one cent, but have this nutty theory that the event would have made like $40 million. What's that, out of thin air? The Williams sisters are certainly super popular, as is John McEnroe, but $40 million in profits, come on. You'd have to have Anna Kournikova doing a topless softcore movie with Big Masha or something for those profits. I see all three falling together, but for little to no money.

CrossCourt~Rally
Dec 5th, 2006, 08:11 PM
They don't police the board as obsessively as you do.

:lol:

faste5683
Dec 5th, 2006, 08:19 PM
What???! :eek: How could have you missed it? I thought the lives of all of us revolved around the WS and we all spent days and nights roaming the Internet to find the news and updates on what's going on with our gurls.

That's right! Can't go a minute without checking out what the sisters are doing...:eek:

:wavey:

dreamgoddess099
Dec 6th, 2006, 12:06 AM
Well, what is her theory then, that Richard could tell IMG what to do?
I guess.:lol:

Couple that with Serena being less than cordial, who in their right mind sinks a cent into this deal without the sisters' signatures?
Nobody, that's why nobody put any money into it.

I imagine that's the problem, these plaintiffs didn't come out of pocket one cent, but have this nutty theory that the event would have made like $40 million. What's that, out of thin air?
Well considering there was no set date the event was to occur, booked venue, commitment from any male players, ticket price ranges, budget, ect. That theory is indeed nutty.


The Williams sisters are certainly super popular, as is John McEnroe, but $40 million in profits, come on. You'd have to have Anna Kournikova doing a topless softcore movie with Big Masha or something for those profits.What concerns me is how the profits were said to be split 80-20 with 80% supposedly going to Richard, while the 20% supposedly was to go the CCKR. Did I miss something because I don't see anything going to Venus and Serena.:lol: They'd have to be stupid to play an event where they made no money.

I see all three falling together, but for little to no money.
I see Richard going down, but I hope Venus and Serena don't have to take a fall with him. They really never committed to the event and are only being brought into it because they are the ones with all the money.:rolleyes:

*JR*
Dec 6th, 2006, 12:09 AM
if they were asked about it, they can't lie
if their lawyer knows they are lying, he has a duty of candor and must state that they are lying

unless he's a scumbag lawyer. although he would be risking his license if anyone found out he had let a client lie in court
Not in the US. A lawyer can't lie in court him or herself without risking a severe penaly, but has absolutely no obligation to "out" a client for doing so.

darrinbaker00
Dec 6th, 2006, 03:06 AM
Apparently you missed this article:

His tax returns, as well as his daughters', show payments for management fees, though father and daughters have testified Richard Williams was the coach, not manager. The characterization of manager was a mistake by the tax preparer, according to the Williamses.

Serena Williams said she reviewed the tax forms before she signed them, but she did not meticulously go over every page because the print is so small, the documents were lengthy and there were lots of numbers.

"I didn't fill out the forms. I'm a tennis player, not an accountant," she said.

I prepare tax returns for a living, and I don't put anything on the return that is not approved by the client. I also advise my clients to review the return before they sign it, because they are responsible for its content. Like Vogus said, the Williamses better hope no one from their local IRS office isn't paying attention to this trial, because they have opened themselves up for an audit.

plantman
Dec 6th, 2006, 03:26 AM
I prepare tax returns for a living, and I don't out anything on the return that is not approved by the client. I also advise my clients to review the return before they sign it, because they are responsible for its content. Like Vogus said, the Williamses better hope no one from their local IRS office isn't paying attention to this trial, because they have opened themselves up for an audit.

I asked some accountant friends myself and they basically said the same thing! This matter could very well blow wide open. I'm sure the IRS dept. has been notified by now.