| KC Johnson on Report Claiming Seligmann Owes Taxes; Detroit News Says IRS Lien for $6.5 Million | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 25 2011, 08:58 AM (7,212 Views) | |
| sceptical | Feb 25 2011, 08:58 AM Post #1 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2011/02/controversial-newspaper-makes-dubious.html Friday, February 25, 2011 Context & A Controversial Newspaper The Detroit News blared the following headline: “Controversial ex-Duke lacrosse player owes IRS $6.5M; lawyer calls it mistake.” The lede: “Nearly four years after receiving an undisclosed settlement from Duke University, Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players exonerated in a racially charged rape case, owes the IRS almost $6.5 million in taxes, according to public records.” The story, originally posted on the News’ “Tax Watchdog” blog by Robert Snell, has a few problems. The first, of course, is its headline. There are a lot of adjectives or adverb-adjective combinations that come to mind in describing Reade Seligmann. “Falsely accused” is the obvious selection. “Widely praised” is another. But “controversial” seems like a highly unusual choice. What exactly is “controversial” about Seligmann? The controversial headline selection is particularly problematic in that the dubious word choice appeared not in the posting by Snell, whose headline was fair and highlighted the denial by Seligmannn’s attorney. Instead, the controversial selection of the adjective “controversial” appeared in an item (with the same text, and linked above) that appeared on the News’ website. I e-mailed the News’ metro editor and web editor to ask why they chose “controversial” to describe Seligmann; neither replied. The Snell posting itself suffers from two problematic elements. The first comes in its use of the “reportedly” standard. Snell concludes his article with the following line: “[Seligmann] reportedly is studying law at Emory University in Atlanta.” I did a Google search of “Reade Seligmann Emory” a few hours after the Snell posting appeared; the two items that most prominently appeared were posts from the Liestoppers board and the Free Republic board. Snell considered these items credible enough to use in his article, with a “reportedly” tag. So his article provides an example of the standards for which he uses a “reportedly” standard. (I don’t see any problem with how Snell handled this matter.) Snell’s post—a he-said, IRS-said item that to any neutral reader would almost certainly leave the impression that the IRS is right—hinges on a quote that he obtains from an expert, “Tax lawyer Jeffrey Freeman of Birmingham, Mich.” According to Freeman, as paraphrased by Snell, “someone would have to make about $20 million in one year to generate a $6.5 million tax bill.” Yet by the posting’s “reportedly” standard, Snell’s expert would seem to have undercut the lien’s validity. In July 2007, Bernie Reeves of Metro reported, “The settlement paid by Duke University to the three families of the falsely accused lacrosse team members — estimated to be around $18 million — follows on the heels of similar deals.” The settlement amount, of course, was confidential. But Reeves’ item would seem to be a credible enough source—by a “reportedly” standard, in any case—for use by the News. Passing along the information from Metro would have tilted Snell’s story from its he-said, IRS-said approach to a story that the IRS might well be wrong. (The amount of the lien would have exceeded the amount of Seligmann’s individual settlement by around $500,000, producing a tax rate on the settlement of more than 100 percent.) And if the IRS made a mistake, Snell’s post is a much different story—something to the effect of “Falsely Accused ex-Duke Player Still Getting Unfair Treatment.” I e-mailed Snell to ask him why he used the “reportedly” standard to include a throw-away item about Seligmann and Emory but declined to use the “reportedly” standard to include an item that would seem quite germane to his story. He said he wasn’t aware of the Raleigh Metro item, nor a vaguer comment by anti-lacrosse extremist (but very well-connected) Tim Tyson that seemed to confirm the Metro report. He was kind enough to respond (twice), and I appreciate his candor, but the problem with the exclusion remains. Snell’s second problematic element: his post (accurately) reported that the lien notice was sent not to Seligmann but to a New York accountant named David Weiss. Snell paraphrases Seligmann’s civil case attorney, Richard Emery, to the effect that Weiss was someone “with whom the Seligmann family consulted several years ago.” Why the IRS would send a tax lien notice not to the subject of the lien but to someone with whom the subject’s “family consulted” Snell doesn’t say. I suspect that most fair-minded readers would come away with the impression that Weiss prepared Seligmann’s taxes (I certainly did)—even though the article never actually makes such a claim. And if, in fact, Weiss did no such work, then the story is a much different one—something to the effect of why the IRS would be sending a huge tax lien to an accountant that actually hadn’t been responsible for preparing Seligmann’s taxes. There’s something “controversial” going on here. But the controversy doesn’t involve Seligmann. |
![]() |
|
| teddy bear | Feb 25 2011, 03:53 PM Post #2 |
|
News and Observer also has story. Jim Cooney, Seligmann's atty, said he paid his taxes and the lien is in error. But the interesting part is the settlement had to be in the 16 to 20 million range for Seligmann alone, making the total for the three over 50 million. Wow! That doesn't include at least that amount for Duke's atty fees, settlement with coach Pressler, and ongoing suits. That's alot of $ just to protect Broadhead and the 88. Where is the alumni outrage. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 25 2011, 04:00 PM Post #3 |
|
UPDATE BY KC: [Update, 10.11am: The story has now been picked up by WRAL, the N&O, and Deadspin, with the N&O article including this charming quote from Raleigh tax attorney Jack Cummings: "You've got enough zeros there that somebody has bound to have thought about it and decided that they didn't owe any tax." Since the same article features a quote from Jim Cooney saying all taxes were paid, and since Richard Emery previously had stated that the lien was imposed in error Cummings is essentially accusing Seligmann's attorneys of having lied.* I don't have much of a doubt which of the two is more credible. If and when the lien is withdrawn, I wonder how many of these outlets will run the news, featured in as prominent a place.] |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Feb 25 2011, 04:01 PM Post #4 |
|
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/25/2011-02-25_former_duke_lacrosse_player_reade_seligmann_owes_irs_millions_report.html Gigantic picture of Reade on the web. F'ing daily News. Bet they don't print anything if the IRS admits a mistake. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 25 2011, 04:18 PM Post #5 |
|
I noticed. A nice, "guilty-looking" picture. (Pictures do a lot to suggest impressions to the reader.) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 25 2011, 05:24 PM Post #6 |
|
A lot of curious timing in all this. First, the AIG suit is settled--perhaps the last of the suits which had to be cleared so that settlements in the other cases could be announced. Then, there is a defamatory piece about the Seligmann, to try and discredit him and the rest of the players, IMHO. Then, there is a piece about how much Durham has had to spend on the suits--with even an implication that the delay has been the plaintiff's fault! All of that seems perhaps to indicate that settlements are near; and those paying are going to have to do some explaining as to why they are doing so. I can guess the way the media will handle this. (Any retraction of the Seligmann story will come later, in fine print, on the back page.) So perhaps we are seeing some movement, finally--but the real truth may once again be buried. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Feb 25 2011, 06:39 PM Post #7 |
|
When I read the article, my first impression was that the IRS was looking at the entire settlement amount and not the third paid to Mr. Seligmann. Since, Mr. Cooney reports that Reade paid the taxes on his portion of the settlement; I expect the matter to be dropped rather quickly and some working level IRS auditor to be on the hot seat. Sometimes I wonder if it weren’t for bad luck, would Reade have any luck at all. But that’s all going to change soon. It’s time for either a settlement or a ruling on the motions. Edited by sdsgo, Feb 25 2011, 06:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Feb 25 2011, 07:43 PM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
I am curious about the timing of this story as well. Is this meant to influence Judge Beaty against going forward with the suits in light of Reade's settlement? Is this meant to derail the case entirely? |
|
|
| sceptical | Feb 25 2011, 08:24 PM Post #9 |
|
Here are links to the two updated articles on the situation: http://www2.nbc17.com/sports/2011/feb/25/ex-duke-lacrosse-player-disputes-65m-tax-lien-ar-814504/ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/02/25/2011-02-25_former_duke_lacrosse_player_reade_seligmann_owes_irs_millions_report.html |
![]() |
|
| Mason | Feb 25 2011, 09:01 PM Post #10 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. KC Johnson: “Falsely Accused ex-Duke Player Still Getting Unfair Treatment.” Funny how the "News" outlets don't take that tact.
Edited by Mason, Feb 25 2011, 09:02 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Feb 25 2011, 11:31 PM Post #11 |
|
As I have commented on K.C.'s blog, it seems that Duke and Raleigh-Durham are intent on further victimizing Reade and his family. Utterly despicable. Reade Seligmann is a good man and does not deserve what North Carolina has done to him.
|
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Feb 26 2011, 01:16 AM Post #12 |
|
Robert Steel is behind this, in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Feb 26 2011, 01:30 AM Post #13 |
|
![]() Ms. Mandell, the author of the hack Daily news article, 5 years ago in college |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Feb 26 2011, 08:28 AM Post #14 |
|
Two significant quotes from Richard Emery (Reade’s attorney) in the AP story deserve attention:
The first quote suggests that $6.5 million (the amount of the IRS lien) was not the settlement amount from Duke, although it is not clear as written whether Emery was talking about the payment to all three former lacrosse players or each one. The second quote about the “wrong set of zeros” is important because it is Emery’s way of saying that the settlement to each guy was under $10 million (one less zero). Emery was apparently trying to steer the reporter without breaking the confidentiality agreement with Duke, which if breached could cost the guys their settlement money. Emery’s comments are in line with speculation that each received $6 million to $8 million from Duke—far less than the $20 million each claimed by news outlets such as the Daily Mail. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 26 2011, 08:33 AM Post #15 |
|
There needs to be an investigation is someone is using the IRS to bring pressure on a litigant in a civil suit. I would think that would be a felony. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |








3:31 AM Jul 11