Haas & Associates Accountancy Corporation - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          the parties that were excluded from admission at the trial on the           
          grounds of irrelevancy.                                                     
               In early 1993, petitioner Michael A. Haas (Haas) severed his           
          employment as a certified public accountant with Dean, Petrie &             
          Haas, an Accountancy Corp. (DPH).  Haas purchased from DPH the              
          right thereafter to render accounting services to a number of               
          former clients of DPH.                                                      
               Haas then began practicing accounting in his individual                
          capacity and through Haas & Associates Accountancy Corp. (Haas &            
          Associates), a new accounting firm that Haas owned and                      
          incorporated as a closely held professional corporation.  The               
          former clients of DPH that Haas “took with him” from DPH were               
          divided between Haas’ individual accounting practice and the                
          corporate accounting practice of Haas & Associates.                         
               To effect the above separation of Haas’ accounting practice            
          from DPH, various parties including Haas signed various written             
          contracts, a separation agreement, and covenants not to compete             
          (the transaction documents).                                                
               In June of 1996, respondent initiated an audit of Haas and             
          his wife’s joint individual Federal income tax return for 1993.             
          Later, respondent’s audit was expanded to include Haas &                    
          Associates’ corporate Federal income tax returns for 1994 and               
          1995.  Respondent’s audit related to the income tax treatment of            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011