Skip to content

Clark Hill Wins for Accounting Firm in Tax Dispute With Rock Band Member

November 7, 2024

Penny Deihl, Pam Palmer, Elizabeth Evans, and Lora De La Portilla secured a motion for summary judgment for an accounting firm before the Los Angeles Superior Court on Oct. 31.

The Clark Hill trio convinced the court that the accounting firm was not liable for an employee’s business management and tax preparation services she provided on the side for a member of a rock band.

The musician filed a complaint because the accounting firm’s employee failed to timely file tax returns from 2014-2018. The musician, his wife, and his businesses sued the accounting firm and the employee for over $3 million in penalties and interest and then $2-4 million in emotional distress damages.

“Our client’s employee had been working with the musician as a side job,” Diehl said. “We submitted evidence to the court that Plaintiffs’ names didn’t show up on the firm’s conflict checks, there was no retainer, no payment, and no knowledge by the firm of the relationship.”

All three parties brought motions for summary judgment, but Clark Hill’s argument that the employee’s work with the rock band member was outside the course and scope of her employment proved pivotal.

“Fortunately for our client, we were able to demonstrate that the employee’s work for the Plaintiffs was not foreseeable and outside the scope of her employment resulting in a lack of liability for our client,” Deihl said.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

What Is Likely the Weakest Provision in Your Multi-State Lease?

Using one eminent domain lease clause across states risks lost value. Learn how state laws should reflect notice and just compensation for better protection.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Critical Risk Mitigation Provisions for Design Contracts — Part 1: Waiver of Consequential Damages

An essential element of architect and engineer contracts with their clients is the treatment of risk sharing between the parties. Design professionals who are typically simply providing services for a fee, and who are not investors who will share in the profits of a successful project, can ill-afford to expose themselves to unlimited liability for negligent errors and omissions in the performance of their services. Architects and engineers would argue that it is fundamentally unfair to expose them to unlimited downside risk when they do not directly participate in the upside profit potential of the projects they design. Owners and developers would counter that this is why design professionals carry professional liability insurance. But even simple design errors can lead to liability that is many times greater than the amount of such insurance.

Explore more
Legal Updates

EPA’s New Turbine Rules Provide Air Permitting Relief for Data Centers

EPA’s Jan. 15, 2026 NSPS for combustion turbines may cut Title V permits, add NOx controls, and define temporary or mobile turbines affecting data centers nationwide.

Explore more