ORDERS:
CONSENT AGREEMENT
The
South Carolina Department of Revenue (Department) initiated this contested case
by issuing a Final Agency Determination (the Final Agency Determination was
issued to two additional individuals, they are not parties to this contested
case and this Consent Agreement does not in any way effect the Department’s
ability to prosecute these individuals in the contested cases currently
pending before the Administrative Law Court) to William L. Spitz (Respondent)
seeking to permanently disbar him from practicing before the Department in the
administrative tax process. Prior to the contested case hearing, the
parties (“parties” as used in this Consent Agreement refers only to William L.
Spitz and the Department) resolved this contested case. That Agreement is
incorporated into this Consent Agreement as set forth below.
1. Respondent agrees that should he continue to practice in the
administrative tax process in South Carolina (the phrase “administrative tax
process” is used throughout this Agreement as defined by S.C. Code Ann. Section
12-60-90 (Supp. 2004)), within six months of initiating such practice he shall
enroll in and complete a study program that qualifies for continuing education
as defined by the AICPA’s Statements on Standards and as adjusted by the South
Carolina Board of Accounting regarding Circular 230 (31 FR ss 10 ( 2005)). Respondent
further agrees to notify the Department prior to his first representations of
clients in the administrative tax process in South Carolina subsequent to entry
of this Agreement and to advise the Department as to the name(s) of his
client(s) at such time only. If Respondent fails to comply with the
requirements of this section, he agrees to submit to permanent disbarment by
the Department.
2. All parties agree to pay their own costs and attorneys fees arising from
or in relation to this contested case and Respondent’s actions in other courts
and tribunals, to include Respondent’s action currently pending in Richland
County Circuit Court, William L. Spitz v. South Carolina Department of Revenue,
05-CP-40-3818.
3. All parties agree that past, present and future claims (by either party)
arising out of or relating to this contested case are forever barred. For
purposes of this Agreement, the phrase “past, present and future claims” shall
not be construed to include a criminal conviction for an act relating to tax related
matters. If ever convicted for a criminal act relating to tax related matters,
Respondent agrees that he will not represent clients in the administrative tax
process in South Carolina. Respondent further agrees to dismiss with prejudice
within five days of Respondent’s receipt of the final and filed Consent
Agreement dismissing this contested case with prejudice all actions related to
this contested case currently pending in any court or tribunal including but
not limited to the action entitled and numbered, William L. Spitz v. South
Carolina Department of Revenue, 05-CP-40-03818.
4. The parties agree that this Agreement is executed in compromise of
further proceedings pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. Section 12-4-320(3) (Supp.
2004). As such, execution of this Agreement shall not be construed as an
admission of any of the allegations as set forth in the Department’s Final
Agency Determination. Further, Respondent specifically denies any acts of
wrongdoing in the administrative tax process in South Carolina.
The
parties further agree that they freely and voluntarily entered into this Agreement.
Further, that this Agreement constitutes the full and final resolution of this contested
case.
I
find this Agreement to be fair and equitable, approve such Agreement, and hereby
Order its adoption. This Court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce this
Agreement. As Respondent no longer requires a hearing on this contested case,
I also Order the Department’s Final Agency Determination to the extent that it
alleges Respondent’s wrongdoing and seeks to disbar Respondent, to be of no
force and effect and as such the Final Agency Determination to the extent that
it seeks to disbar Respondent, and Respondent’s Request for Contested Case Hearing
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 21,
2006 _________________________________
Honorable
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief
Administrative Law Judge |