Miksic v. Boeckermann Grafstrom Mayer, LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. 1) Granting in part and denying in part defendants' 33 Motion for Summary Judgment. (a) To the extent the motion seeks to preclude Miksic from recovering as damages abated Form 5471 penalties, payment for delin quent taxes, and attorneys' fees expended to bring the instant action, the motion is GRANTED. (b) In all other respects, the motion is DENIED. 2) Denying defendants' 37 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on March 28, 2017. (DML) Modified text on 3/28/2017 (ACH).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 15-539 (JRT/BRT)
BORIS A. MIKSIC,
BOECKERMANN GRAFSTROM MAYER,
LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company
f/k/a Johnson, West & Co. P.L.C.,
BOECKERMANN GRAFSTROM MAYER,
P.A., and JOHNSON WEST & CO. P.L.C.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT
Gregory J. Stenmoe and Michael M. Sawers, BRIGGS & MORGAN, PA,
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for plaintiff.
Kyle A. Eidsness and Russell S. Ponessa, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
LLP, 333 South Seventh Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) assessed substantial taxes, monetary
penalties, and interest against Plaintiff Boris Miksic for his failure to file U.S. tax forms
during tax years 2005 to 2010, and not disclosing his interests in and income from foreign
trusts, businesses, and bank accounts. Miksic filed this accounting malpractice action
alleging those errors were due to negligent tax preparation by Defendants Boeckermann
Graftstrom Mayer LLC, formerly known as Johnson, West & Co. P.L.C., Boeckermann
Graftstrom Mayer, P.A., and Johnson West & Co. P.L.C. (collectively “Defendants”).
Miksic also contends that as a result of Defendants’ negligence, he changed accountants
and retained legal counsel to respond to the IRS audit and to bring this action.
Defendants move for summary judgment on Miksic’s malpractice action and move
to exclude testimony by Miksic’s causation and liability expert, Arthur H. Cobb.
Specifically, Defendants assert that: the six-year statute of limitations bars Miksic’s
malpractice action; Miksic failed to provide meaningful expert testimony as required by
Minn. Stat. § 544.42; the doctrines of in pari delicto and laches bar Miksic’s action; and
Miksic cannot recover certain IRS penalties, all delinquent tax liabilities, and all
attorneys’ fees expended to bring the instant action.
The Court will deny in part and grant in part Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. The Court will deny the motion as the Court finds that Miksic’s claim is
timely, Cobb’s expert testimony provides a meaningful summary of his accounting
malpractice opinion, and the in pari delicto and laches doctrines do not apply to the
The Court, however, will grant Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment to preclude Miksic from recovering as damages abated Form 5471 penalties,
payment for delinquent taxes, and attorneys’ fees expended in the instant action. The
Court finds Cobb is qualified to offer his expert opinion in this case and that his opinion
will not confuse or mislead the jury, the Court will deny Defendants’ motion to exclude
Cobb’s expert testimony.
MIKSIC’S RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANTS
Miksic is a Croatian-American entrepreneur who lives in the United States. (Aff.
of Michael M. Sawers (“Sawers Aff.”), Ex. 1 (“Miksic Dep.”) at 14:12-19, 18:22-19:25,
Aug. 12, 2016, Docket No. 45.) English is not his first language. (Id. at 14:19-20.)
Miksic owns several American and Croatian companies, including a Minnesota-based
corporation named Cortec Corporation (“Cortec”), of which he is the sole shareholder, as
well as a Croatian-based company named EcoCortec. (Id. at 18:24-20:21; 28:2-32:20.)
Defendants provided accounting services for both Miksic and Cortec since 1988. (Id. at
When Miksic first retained Defendants, his primary Certified Public Accountant
(“CPA”) was Cliff Lozinski. (Miksic Dep. at 76:20-77:20.) Once Lozinski retired in
approximately 2006 (Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 3, Aug. 12,
2016, Docket No. 43), CPAs Cory Parnell and Corey Edmunds took on a substantial role
in providing Miksic accounting advice and services, (Miksic Dep. at 76:20-77:20; Sawers
Aff., Ex. 8 (“Edmunds Aff.”) ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 9 (“Parnell Aff.”) ¶ 4).
THE DELINQUENT IRS FORMS
In March 2010, the IRS notified Cortec that its federal return had been selected for
examination. (Sawers Aff., Ex. 10.) As a result of that examination, the IRS notified
In 1988, Miksic retained Johnson, West & Co. P.L.C., which later merged with
Boeckermann Graftstrom Mayer, LLC, in 2012. (Id. at 50:2-18; Sawers Aff., Ex. 7.)
Miksic that he failed to file various forms pertaining to his foreign interests, including
(1) Form 5471 (“Information Return of a U.S. Person With Respect to Certain Foreign
Corporations”), (id., Ex. 11); (2) Form 3520 (“Annual Return To Report Transactions
With Foreign Trusts and Receipt of Certain Foreign Gifts”), (id., Ex. 12); (3) Form 3520A (“Annual Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner”), (id., Ex. 12); and
(4) Form TD F 90-22.1 (“Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts”) (hereinafter
“FBAR”), (id., Ex. 13), (collectively the “Delinquent Forms”). Miksic alleges that the
IRS assessed substantial monetary penalties, interest, and taxes as a result of Miksic’s
failure to file the Delinquent Forms between tax years 2005 to 2010. 2 Miksic asserts he
may recover those amounts as damages, as well as costs, fees, and expenses to change
accountants and retain legal counsel to respond to the IRS audit and to bring this action.
TAX YEARS AT ISSUE
The parties agree that during tax years 2005 to 2010, Defendants sent Miksic an
engagement letter and a questionnaire. (See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J.
at 8, July 22, 2016, Docket No. 35; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at
9.) Miksic, however, signed Defendants’ engagement letter only for tax year 2006.
(Miksic Dep. at 57:5-58:5; Decl. of Michael T. Berger (“Berger Decl.), Ex. 4 at 2-3,
The Court was unable to determine, based on the parties’ briefings and a thorough
review of the record, the exact amount of IRS penalties, interest, and delinquent taxes assessed
during the 2005 to 2010 tax years relating to the Delinquent Forms. The parties themselves
offered different amounts, (compare Compl. ¶¶ 44-50, Feb. 18, 2015, Docket No. 1, with Defs.’
Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 17-19, July 22, 2016, Docket No. 35, and Pl.’s Mem. in
Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 5-6, Aug. 12, 2016, Docket No. 43), and the Court was
unable to resolve the discrepancies based on the parties’ citations to the record.
Apr. 7, 2016, Docket No. 27.) That engagement letter states: “[y]ou have the final
responsibility for the income tax returns and, therefore, you should review them carefully
before you sign them.” (Berger Decl., Ex. 4 at 2.) The questionnaire attached to that
letter asked, “[d]id you have any foreign income or pay any foreign taxes during the
year?,” and “[w]ere you a grantor or transferor for a foreign trust, have an interest in or a
signature or other authority over a bank account, securities account, or other financial
account in a foreign country?” (Id. at 5-6.) Miksic asserts he did not return completed
questionnaires for several of the tax years at issue. (See Sawers Aff., Ex. 4 at 67:4-10;
Instead, Miksic explained that he likely gave the questionnaire to Angie
McGillivray, the Chief Financial Officer of Cortec. (Miksic Dep. at 46:20-24, 62:19-23,
63:16-65:6; see also Berger Aff., Ex. 5 at 33:10-34:9.) According to Miksic, McGillivray
was “fully aware of all of the financial accounts in which [he] had an interest in the 2005
through 2010 timeframe,” and he provided her with tax information to give to
Defendants. (Miksic Dep. at 85:8-12; 48:7-49:8; 63:4-64:12.) Defendants counter that
on three separate instances, one of Defendants’ tax preparers (other than Parnell and
Edmunds) inquired with McGillivray about Miksic’s foreign financial accounts for tax
years 2006, 2008, and 2010. (Berger Decl., Ex. 7, Ex. 10, Ex. 11; see Defs.’ Mem. in
Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. at 13-14.) However, Defendants maintain, McGillivray and
Miksic did not disclose Miksic’s foreign accounts which should have been reported on
Miksic, on the contrary, asserts that Defendants did not follow up with him
regarding his blank questionnaires (Sawers Aff., Ex. 4 at 67:4-10; 71:23-72:9), that
Parnell and Edmunds never asked Miksic about foreign accounts (Parnell Aff. ¶ 9;
Edmunds Aff. ¶ 12), that Defendants’ tax return software defaulted to an inaccurate
statement of Miksic’s foreign interests (Edmunds Aff. ¶ 12), and – notwithstanding that
Defendants filed an FBAR for Miksic in 2006 and indicated on Miksic’s 2008 and 2009
tax returns that he had foreign accounts – Defendants failed to file FBARS in the tax
years at issue succeeding 2006 (Sawers Aff., Ex. 4 at 83:10-84:20; Edmunds Aff. ¶ 7-8,
11). Miksic also contends that Defendants knew about Miksic’s ownership interest in
EcoCortec – which needed to be disclosed on Miksic’s Form 5471 – but that Defendants
failed to file that form for tax years 2007 to 2009. 3 (Edmunds Aff. ¶ 8.) Lastly, Miksic
argues Defendants never inquired whether he owned a foreign trust and that Miksic did
not know his interest in and distributions from a Lichtenstein foundation required filing
Forms 3520 and 3520A in tax years 2005 through 2008. (Miksic Dep. at 116:16-18;
On November 24, 2014, Miksic sued Defendants in Minnesota state court, and
Defendants removed that action to federal court on December 22, 2014. (Case No. 145047 (DWF-TNL), Notice of Removal, Dec. 22, 2014, Docket No. 1.)
The IRS, however, ultimately abated the $60,000 it initially assessed in penalties for
Miksic’s late Form 5471 filing. (Berger Decl., Ex.14.)
stipulated for dismissal of that action on February 17, 2015, and it was dismissed without
prejudice on February 18, 2015. (Case No. 14-5047 (DWF-TNL), Joint Stipulation of
Dismissal, Feb. 17, 2015, Docket No. 5; Dismissal Order, Feb. 18, 2015, Docket No. 6.)
Miksic refiled this action on February 18, 2015, before the Court and asserted five claims
against Defendants: accounting malpractice; breach of contract; unjust enrichment;
negligent misrepresentation; and breach of fiduciary duty.
Defendants moved for
summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony on July 22, 2016.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Standard of Review
Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the lawsuit, and a dispute is
genuine if the evidence is such that it could lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
either party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A court
considering a motion for summary judgment must view the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn from those facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriate if the nonmoving
party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “To defeat a motion for summary
judgment, a party may not rest upon allegations, but must produce probative evidence
sufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue [of material fact] for trial.” Davenport v. Univ.
of Ark. Bd. of Trs., 553 F.3d 1110, 1113 (8th Cir. 2009). If the plaintiff’s version of
events “is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it,
a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for
summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).
Statute of Limitations
The parties dispute whether the applicable statute of limitations bars Miksic’s
state-law cause of action for accounting malpractice against Defendants. Minn. Stat.
§ 541.05, subd. 1(5) provides a six year limitation period for a professional malpractice
claim. Bonhiver v. Graff, 248 N.W.2d 291, 296 (Minn. 1976) (stating the statute of
limitations for an accounting malpractice action is six years and citing to Minn. Stat.
§ 541.05, subd. 1(5)). Although the statute does not specifically state when that period
begins, the Minnesota Supreme Court has “consistently held that the statute begins to run
when the cause of action accrues, that is, when the plaintiff can allege sufficient facts to
survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Antone v. Mirviss, 720 N.W.2d 331, 335 (Minn. 2006). The Minnesota Supreme Court
also explained that a malpractice action accrues when the plaintiff sustained “some
damage” as the result of the defendant’s negligence. Id. at 335-36. 4
Miksic first sued Defendants on November 24, 2014, and thus any claim that
accrued as early as six years from then – i.e., November 24, 2008 – is timely. Defendants
assert that Miksic’s claims accrued in April 2006 when he filed his tax forms for tax year
2005 and allegedly suffered “some damage,” due to Defendants’ tax preparation.
Additionally, Defendants contend that the tax years at issue comprise a single course of
representation such that all of Defendants’ alleged negligence relates back to filing of
Miksic’s tax return in April 2006. Defendants rely upon Ames & Fischer Co., II v.
McDonald, 798 N.W.2d 557, 563-64 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) (finding that the applicable
statute of limitations for an accounting malpractice claim accrued upon the filing of a tax
return), Reid Enterprises, Inc., v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, No. C8-99-1801, 2000 WL
665684, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. May 23, 2000) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that there
was separate negligence in each year the returns were prepared), and Herrmann v.
McMenomy & Severson, 590 N.W.2d 641, 643-44 (Minn. 1999) (holding malpractice
cause of action accrued when plaintiff took first prohibited tax action when such
transactions spanned several years).
Miksic responds that his claims accrued no earlier than January 27, 2011, when
the IRS issued its first penalty because prior to that date, not only would he have had no
Although Antone was a legal malpractice case and the instant action is an accounting
malpractice case, the parties agree that the statute of limitations – Minn. Stat. § 541.05,
subd. 1(5) – applies to both kinds of professional negligence cases. (See Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of
Mot. for Summ. J. at 21; Pl.’s Mem. in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. at 19.)
notice of the claim, but his damages would have been “[s]peculative, remote, or
conjectural.” See Anderson v. Benson, 394 N.W.2d 171, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)
(rejecting buyer’s alleged damages where buyer introduced no evidence that seller’s
failure to file a corporate tax return exposed the corporation to present or future tax
liability to the IRS).
The Court finds that none of Defendants’ proffered cases are controlling with
regard to the statutes of limitations issue in the instant action. Ames is inapplicable
because the certified question before the Minnesota Court of Appeals in that case was:
“[d]oes a cause of action for professional malpractice arising out of a failure to
make a [Internal Revenue Code] Section 754 election accrue when the tax return is
filed without the election rather than when the automatic extension period expires?”
Ames, 798 N.W.2d at 561-62. In deciding that narrow question, the Ames court held that
the statute of limitations began to run “when the returns were filed without the Section
754 elections, which resulted in the immediate overpayment of taxes and the loss of the
use of those funds.” Id. at 564. In contrast to Ames, the failure to file the Delinquent
Forms did not affect Miksic until January 27, 2011, the first date when the IRS levied
penalties against him.
Furthermore, Defendants’ attempt to fix the accrual date of Miksic’s claims in
April 2006 by characterizing the nature of Defendants’ services as a continuous
representation is misguided. Defendants assert Herrmann is apposite in that Miksic’s
opportunity to identify his interest in and income from foreign accounts and entities was
identical in each of the relevant tax years and that this error related to damages Miksic
- 10 -
allegedly suffered in April 2006. However, the tax professionals in Herrmann gave
negligent advice once and the taxpayer acted on that advice for nearly a decade, 590
N.W.2d at 642-44; whereas in the instant action, Defendants were under a new obligation
every year to conduct an investigation of the facts and prepare the appropriate tax
documents for Miksic. Moreover, the Reid decision is factually distinguishable because
in that case the IRS levied a single penalty “regardless of how many conformity
violations Reid had during [a] six years [period],” 2000 WL 665684, at *2; whereas
Defendants’ supposed malpractice caused the IRS to assess substantial penalties for each
tax year at issue.
According to Defendants, upon the failure to file the Delinquent Forms, Miksic
should have sued Defendants, even though he was unaware of the failure, the IRS had not
yet assessed penalties, and may never have assessed penalties. The Court is unpersuaded
by Defendants’ position. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Boyle, “[m]ost
taxpayers are not competent to discern error in the substantive advice of an accountant or
attorney. To require the taxpayer to challenge the [accountant or] attorney, to seek a
‘second opinion,’ or to try to monitor counsel on the provisions of the Code himself
would nullify the very purpose of seeking the advice of a presumed expert in the first
place.” 469 U.S. 241, 251 (1985). Accordingly, it would have been impossible for
Miksic to discover the omission of his Delinquent Forms at any time earlier than receipt
of his first IRS penalty notice.
Only once the IRS first assessed penalties on January 27, 2011, Miksic incurred
“some damage” to begin the statute of limitations period as the Minnesota Supreme Court
- 11 -
described in Antone, 720 N.W.2d at 335. The Antone court explained that a malpractice
cause of action accrues upon occurrence of “any compensable damage,” not just the
damage for which the precise relief is sought in the complaint. Id. at 336. “[T]he ability
to ascertain the exact amount of damages is not dispositive with respect to the running of
the statute of limitations.” Id. at 338. Thus, at the time Miksic received his first assessed
IRS penalty – although the extent of that and related penalties were unascertainable, and
even if the IRS may later abate those penalties – Miksic incurred “some damage.” 5 Thus,
as Miksic’s claim did not accrue until January 27, 2011, his instant action filed on
November 24, 2014, is within the six year statute of limitations set forth in Minn. Stat.
§ 541.05, subd. 1(5).
Minnesota Statute § 544.42
Defendants also advocate for dismissal of Miksic’s action on the grounds that
Cobb’s second affidavit fails to meet the Minnesota statutory requirements. Minnesota
law requires a party asserting a claim for professional malpractice to serve a second
affidavit of expert review, within 180 days after discovery begins, which sets forth the
“substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, and a
Defendants also contend that Miksic’s claims are barred by the doctrine of laches
because Miksic waited many years before filing this case and significant information was lost
through the death of Cliff Lozinski, a critical witness in this malpractice action. However,
because Miksic’s accounting malpractice action is a legal action governed by an applicable
statute of limitations, the equitable doctrine of laches has no application. See Aronovitch v. Levy,
56 N.W.2d 570, 573-574 (Minn. 1953) (“Where a party is seeking a legal remedy upon a legal
right, we have held that the doctrine of laches has no application and that the remedy will be
barred only by the statute of limitations.”) (collecting cases).
- 12 -
summary of the grounds for each opinion.”
Minn. Stat. § 544.42, subds. 2, 4.
Defendants rely upon Guzick v. Kimball, 869 N.W.2d 42, 51 (Minn. 2015), and BrownWilbert, Inc. v. Copeland Buhl & Co., 732 N.W.2d 209, 219 (Minn. 2007), in which the
Minnesota Supreme Court held that the expert affidavits failed to provide meaningful
information beyond conclusory statements and summaries of the expert’s opinions. 6
However, Cobb’s second affidavit belies Defendants’ reliance on Guzick and
Brown-Wilbert. In Guzick, the plaintiff did not provide a second affidavit of expert
disclosure and instead referred back to the first affidavit in place of its second affidavit.
869 N.W.2d at 45-46. 7 Moreover, the first affidavit did not provide any information
regarding the expert’s causation theory but instead stated in a conclusory manner that the
defendants’ negligent acts “caused damages.” Id. at 45, 51. Similarly, in Brown-Wilbert,
the Minnesota Supreme Court held allegations in a complaint and answers to
interrogatories did not satisfy the requirements for a second affidavit under Minn. Stat. §
544.42 when such information did “not identify or define any specific accounting
Defendants also assert that Cobb’s second affidavit is speculative and did not include
the substance of his opinions because he testified during his deposition that he reached those
opinions after serving his second affidavit. (See Decl. of Michael T. Berger, Ex. 5 at 9:5-20,
July 22, 2016, Docket No. 40; see also Aff. of Arthur H. Cobb, Ex. 1, Aug. 17, 2016, Docket
No. 51.) However, there is no reason to doubt that Cobb’s second affidavit reflected his analysis
at the time it was submitted and that his expert opinions had not been cemented at that time
because discovery was ongoing. This is consistent with the statutory requirement that a second
affidavit of expert review be served within 180 days after discovery begins. Minn. Stat.
§ 544.42, subd. 2.
In Guzick, the Minnesota Supreme Court refers to the first affidavit required by Minn.
Stat. § 544.42 as the “affidavit of expert review” and the second affidavit as the “affidavit of
expert disclosure.” 869 N.W.2d at 46-47.
- 13 -
standard of care, state how [the defendants] deviated from that standard of care, or allege
how that deviation caused injury.” 732 N.W.2d at 219.
In contrast to those cases, Cobb’s second affidavit lists several different
accounting standards that form the applicable standard of care Defendants owed to
Miksic, including specific provisions from the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (“AICPA”) Statements on Standards for Tax Service and the AICPA Code
of Professional Conduct. (See Aff. of Arthur H. Cobb, Ex. 1 ¶¶ 8-10, Aug. 17, 2016,
Docket No. 51.) The affidavit describes how Defendants breached that standard of care
by not obtaining sufficient relevant data, not making a reasonable inquiry, not referring to
Miksic’s previous returns, allowing unanswered questions to default to “no,” and not
filing or advising Miksic to file various IRS forms. (Id. ¶¶ 11-17.) Furthermore, Cobb
opines that Defendants’ deviations from the applicable standards of care proximately and
directly caused scrutiny by the IRS which caused Miksic to incur significant damages,
including penalties and interest, as well as other costs, fees, and expenses. (Id. at ¶¶ 1819.)
Thus, Cobb’s second affidavit goes well beyond conclusory statements that
negligent acts “caused damages,” as was the issue in Guzick, 869 N.W.2d at 51, and also
meaningfully opines that Defendants’ departure from the standard of care caused
Miksic’s injuries, as was the issue is Brown-Wilbert, 732 N.W.2d at 219.
In Pari Delicto
Defendants next seek to invoke the equitable defense of in pari delicto, a doctrine
which bars a plaintiff’s recovery due to his own wrongful conduct. See Pinter v. Dahl,
- 14 -
486 U.S. 622, 632 (1988). Defendants argue that Miksic is barred from recovering
damages because not only did he fail to review and identify missing information from his
tax returns, he also affirmatively withheld information about his foreign accounts and
ownership in the Rust Foundation despite having received letters from a Swiss law firm
about potential U.S. tax consequences associated with the foundation.
Defendants assert that Christians v. Grant Thornton, LLP is an instructive case.
733 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). In Christians, a company’s Chief Executive
Officer (“CEO”) entered into a transaction contrary to his company’s best interest, which
he later concealed from the company’s auditor, Grant Thornton, LLP. Id. at 806-07.
Grant Thornton’s audit resulted in an overstatement of the company’s equity. Id. The
company later went bankrupt and its trustee brought an auditor malpractice action against
Grant Thornton. Id. at 807-08. The Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that in pari
delicto barred such recovery because the CEO’s inequitable conduct to deceive outsiders
was imputed to the company, and thus the company bore “at least substantially equal
responsibility for the injury it s[ought] to remedy [in the action].” Id. at 810, 814-15.
The Court finds Christians distinguishable from the instant action. In Christians,
it was undisputed that the auditor was never presented with critical information about the
company, despite the CEO’s dishonest assertion that he had provided the auditor with all
relevant financial records and related data. Id. at 814. In the instant action, however, the
parties dispute whether Defendants inquired about Miksic’s foreign financial accounts
and entities during the tax years at issue. Although Defendants assert that they made
such an inquiry for tax years in 2006, 2008, and 2010 regarding Miksic’s foreign
- 15 -
financial information (which primarily relates to FBARs), Defendants do not offer any
argument regarding such an inquiry in tax years 2005, 2007, 2009. Furthermore, Miksic
disputes Defendants’ version of the facts and asserts that Defendants did not follow up
with him – despite intimate and longstanding knowledge of his foreign affairs – to ensure
the Delinquent Forms were timely filed. Miksic also asserts neither Parnell nor Edmunds
ever asked Miksic if he had any foreign accounts, and that Defendants’ tax return
software defaulted to an inaccurate statement of Miksic’s foreign interests.
The other cases Defendants rely upon in support of the in pari delicto defense are
also distinguishable. Giordano v. UBS, AG, involved a plaintiff who sought to hold a
Swiss bank responsible for the consequences of the plaintiff’s own filing of false tax
returns when the Swiss bank was not involved in preparing those returns.
134 F. Supp. 3d 697, 701, 708-09 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The Giordano court found that the
plaintiff failed to “allege any facts that would relieve her of her own culpability for
knowingly filing false tax returns.” Id. at 710. In re Hansel is also distinguishable.
No. 08-3177, 2012 WL 3113849, at *10 (Bankr. D. Minn. June 15, 2012) (holding debtor
did not plead facts negating wrongdoing on her part).
In contrast, Miksic asserts that Defendants – despite their intimate history of
working with Miksic and general knowledge of his involvement with foreign entities –
failed to inquire about Miksic’s foreign financial accounts. Miksic specifically notes that
notwithstanding that Defendants filed an FBAR for Miksic in 2006 – and indicated on
Miksic’s 2008 and 2009 tax returns that he had foreign accounts – Defendants failed to
file FBARS in the tax years at issue succeeding 2006.
- 16 -
Miksic also contends that
Defendants knew about Miksic’s ownership interest in EcoCortec – which needed to be
disclosed on Miksic’s Form 5471 – but that Defendants failed to file that form for tax
years 2007 to 2009. Lastly, Miksic argues Defendants never inquired whether he owned
a foreign trust and that Miksic did not know his interest in and distributions from a
Lichtenstein foundation required filing Forms 3520 and 3520A in tax years 2005 through
2008. Based on this genuine material factual dispute of which party is at fault for the
failure to file Miksic’s Delinquent Forms, it is improper for the Court to apply the in pari
delicto doctrine at this time. 8
Defendants next contend that if this case proceeds, the Court must limit Miksic’s
claimed damages regarding FBAR penalties, Form 5471 penalties, delinquent taxes, and
attorneys’ fees. The Court will address each issue in turn.
Defendants also contend that Miksic’s signature on his tax return serves as his
constructive notice of the contents and is prima facie evidence that he understood questions on
his tax return regarding FBAR and Form 3520 filing requirements. Defendants cite to United
States v. Williams, 489 F. App’x 655, 659 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding that a signature was prima
facie evidence the taxpayer reviewed the return and that line 7a put the taxpayer on inquiry
notice of FBAR requirements); United States v. McBride, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1208 (D. Utah
2012) (finding as a matter of law that a taxpayer who signs his return is charged with having
reviewed that return and with having knowledge of his foreign account disclosure requirement);
Thomas v. UBS AG, No. 11-4798, 2012 WL 2396866, at *5 n. 2 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 2012)
(finding that “[t]he simple yes-or-no question of Schedule B makes it inconceivable that [a
taxpayer] could have misinterpreted this question"). However, none of these cases were
accounting malpractice cases or discussed the in pari delicto defense, and thus, they do not assist
the Court in making such a determination. These cases instead generally involved whether the
IRS could assess penalties against taxpayers for willfully violating the Internal Revenue Code
section requiring an annual report of foreign financial interests.
- 17 -
Defendants assert that because Miksic has appealed his FBAR penalties with the
IRS, those damages should be considered too speculative and unrecoverable. In support
of that argument, Defendants rely upon Lewin v. Miller Wagner & Co., 725 P.2d 736
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1986), and Olson, Clough & Straumann, CPA’s v. Trayne Properties,
Inc., 392 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). However, neither case is persuasive. In
Lewin, the court held that the plaintiff’s claimed accounting malpractice damages were
speculative when the IRS agent had not levied any penalties and there was no evidence
whether that agent’s determination would be upheld at a higher IRS administrative level
or in litigation. 725 P.2d at 740-41. In contrast, the IRS assessed substantial and fixed
penalties based on Miksic’s failure to file FBARs. Also unlike the instant action, in
Olson, the court held reputation and loss of business damages which could not be reliably
calculated were too speculative. 392 N.W.2d at 4.
Thus, the Court finds that Miksic’s damages are not unduly speculative. See, e.g.,
J & M Assocs., Inc. v. Callahan, 753 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1216 (S.D. Ala. 2010) (stating
damages were “not speculative simply because [the taxpayer] ha[d] not paid the
penalties, especially since the IRS ha[d] determined a specific amount owed”).
Nevertheless, if this case proceeds to trial while Miksic’s appeal with the IRS is still
pending and if, as a result of trial, Miksic is entitled to recover from Defendants relating
to his FBAR penalties, then the Court will order that amount of recovery be placed into
escrow with the Court. The Court will require this because it recognizes that Miksic
could doubly recover if the IRS abates Miksic’s FBAR penalties. Furthermore, during
- 18 -
the pendency of this case, Miksic’s counsel is to provide a written report to the Court
every six months providing any developments with Miksic’s appeal with the IRS.
Form 5471 Penalties and Delinquent Taxes
Defendants assert that after Miksic commenced this action, the IRS abated his
Form 5471 penalties; thus that amount must be excluded to prevent double recovery.
Defendants also contend that Miksic cannot recover the amount he paid to the IRS as tax
deficiencies. Miksic does not offer any counter argument.
The Court finds Miksic is precluded from recovering any of these amounts. As
the IRS abated Miksic’s Form 5471 penalties, he may not seek that amount as damages in
this action. See e.g., Vesta State Bank v. Indep. State Bank of Minn., 518 N.W.2d 850,
855 (Minn. 1994) (“[I]f inconsistent remedies are sought and it is doubtful which one will
bring relief, a party may claim either or both alternatively until one remedy is pursued to
a determinative conclusion.”). Holding otherwise would improperly permit a double
redress for a single claim. Furthermore, Miksic cannot recover as damages the amount he
paid to the IRS as tax deficiencies because, “when a tax advisor’s negligence leads to an
underpayment of tax, the taxpayer cannot recover as damages the tax deficiency itself
because the tax liability arose not from the negligent advice, but from the ongoing
obligation to pay the tax.” O’Bryan v. Ashland, 717 N.W. 2d 632, 633 (S.D. 2006).
Thus, the Court finds that Miksic may not recover as damages his abated Form 5471
penalties or his payment of delinquent taxes.
- 19 -
Defendants finally assert Miksic cannot recover any attorneys’ fees he paid to
bring the instant accounting malpractice action and cite to Whitney v. Buttrick, 376
N.W.2d 274 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985). Defendants, however, do not address whether
Miksic may claim damages for attorneys’ fees paid to respond to the IRS audit. Miksic
counters he is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees he paid during his tax appeal with the
IRS, citing to Hill v. Okay Constr. Co., 252 N.W.2d 107, 121 (Minn. 1977), as well as
attorneys’ fees in the instant case to mitigate damages caused by Defendants’
The Minnesota Supreme Court explained in Hill that, “[a]ttorneys fees and
expenses are not generally included in the measure of recoverable damages for
negligence. An exception is recognized, however, when the attorneys fees and expenses
claimed are incurred in other litigation which is necessitated by the act of the party
sought to be charged.” 252 N.W.2d at 121 (citation omitted). Likewise, the Minnesota
Court of Appeals in Whitney held that “appellant's claim that respondent is liable to him
for attorney fees in suing respondent for legal malpractice fails in the absence of
authorization by statute or case law.
Attorney fees and expenses are not generally
included in the measure of recoverable damages for negligence.” 376 N.W.2d at 281
(citing Hill, 252 N.W.2d at 121).
Thus, although Hill appears to support Miksic’s position that his attorneys’ fees
paid during his tax appeal with the IRS are recoverable – which Defendants do not
contest – clearly under both Hill and Whitney, attorneys’ fees expended in the instant
- 20 -
accounting malpractice action are not recoverable. Miksic does not cite to any Minnesota
case holding otherwise. The Court will therefore grant Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment that Miksic’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with this action fails as a
matter of law.
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY
Defendants move to exclude testimony from Miksic’s expert witness, Cobb.
Defendants assert that Cobb is not qualified to offer an expert opinion on the specific tax
preparation issues involved in this litigation, that Cobb employs the wrong professional
standards in reaching his liability and causation theories, and that Cobb’s testimony is
Standard of Review
Expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Rule 702 provides
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case.
Fed. R. Evid. 702. The district court has a gate-keeping obligation to make certain that
all testimony admitted under Rule 702 satisfies these prerequisites and that “any and all
- 21 -
scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable.” Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589 (1993). The proponent of the expert
testimony has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the
expert is qualified, that his or her methodology is scientifically valid, and that “the
reasoning or methodology in question is applied properly to the facts in issue.” Marmo v.
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 757-58 (8th Cir. 2006). The reliability inquiry is
“designed to ‘make certain that an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional
studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual
rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.’” Id. at 757 (quoting
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152 (1999)).
The Eighth Circuit has held that “[c]ourts should resolve doubts regarding the
usefulness of an expert’s testimony in favor of admissibility.” Id. at 758; see also Kumho
Tire, 526 U.S. at 152 (“[T]he trial judge must have considerable leeway in deciding in a
particular case how to go about determining whether particular expert testimony is
reliable.”). “Only if the expert’s opinion is so fundamentally unsupported that it can offer
no assistance to the jury must such testimony be excluded.” Bonner v. ISP Techs., Inc.,
259 F.3d 924, 929-30 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hose v. Chi. Nw. Transp. Co., 70 F.3d 968,
974 (8th Cir. 1996)).
The parties do not dispute that Cobb is not a tax preparer. Defendants assert Cobb
is not qualified to offer an expert opinion because he has no education, training, or
- 22 -
experience in tax preparation of the specific forms at issue and, as a result, has no
experience in complying with the specific professional standards governing tax
Defendants principally rely on Khoday v. Symantec Corp.,
93 F. Supp. 3d 1067, 1081 (D. Minn. 2015) (holding “general background” and “common
sense” were “not adequate methods or techniques for formulating specific opinions,”
especially where the expert had not personally preformed any software downloads or
used the websites at issue), and Noske v. Friedberg, 713 N.W.2d 866, 872 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2006) (affirming the trial court’s decision to preclude a law professor who taught
torts and professional responsibility from testifying in a legal malpractice case because
“lack of practical or academic experience in the criminal-law area” rendered his
testimony about the duty of a criminal defense attorney inadmissible).
However, Defendants argument is refuted by Cobb’s deposition testimony. Cobb
indicated that some of his continuing education credits related to the preparation of
individual tax returns and that he took a course within the last year specifically on tax
preparation for individuals with foreign accounts or foreign investments. (Sawers Aff.,
Ex. 6 (“Cobb Dep.”) at 40:11-41:5.) Cobb also testified that he has advised and analyzed
FBAR and Form 5471 filings, analyzed tax returns, and served on the professional ethics
committee of the Minnesota Society of Certified Public Accountants where he analyzed
accountants in practice. (Id. at 34:7-36:18, 43:8-45:4.) Furthermore, Cobb explained that
he applied various AICPA professional standards for tax services – including preparation
of individual tax forms – and that he has had many instances throughout his career to
analyze tax preparation and tax returns. (Id. at 43:8-48:25, 59:13-24.)
- 23 -
Thus, unlike Khoday, 93 F. Supp. 3d at 1081, and Noske, 713 N.W.2d at 872, the
Court finds that Cobb has sufficient educational and practical experience relating to tax
accounting and the applicable professional standards to testify regarding the professional
duties applicable to the tax accountants in this dispute.
Cobb’s Opinion Regarding AICPA AR § 100
Defendants also assert that Cobb’s liability and causation views, which are based
in part upon AICPA AR § 100, should be excluded because that standard was
erroneously applied and will confuse the jury. (See Sawers Aff., Ex. 29 (“Cobb Report.”)
at 12; Cobb Dep. at 106:1-5.) Defendants specifically note that AICPA AR § 100 applies
to audit and financial review services, whereas the instant malpractice action involves
Defendants’ performance of tax services.
(See Cobb Dep. at 105:4-22.)
Defendants assert, Cobb’s liability or causation views are not derived from any reliable or
accepted application of AICPA AR § 100 to this case.
However, Defendants’ argument misunderstands Cobb’s application of AICPA
AR § 100 in this action.
Cobb does not opine that AICPA AR § 100 applied to
Defendants’ tax preparation services specifically. (See Cobb Report. at 12.) Instead,
Cobb explained during his deposition that, pursuant to its audit and financial review
services of Cortec, Defendants had an independent duty to investigate and obtain a
general understanding of Cortec’s organization and financial dealings. (Cobb Dep. at
That knowledge, Cobb asserts, should have informed Defendants’ tax
preparation services for Miksic and would have prevented many of the tax filings errors
- 24 -
at issue. (Id. at 106:6-109:8.) As the Court does not find that this distinction would
confuse a jury or would render Cobb’s opinion unreliable, the Court will deny
Defendants’ motion to exclude Cobb’s expert testimony.
This case will be placed on the Court’s next available trial calendar.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 33] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
To the extent the motion seeks to preclude Miksic from recovering
as damages abated Form 5471 penalties, payment for delinquent taxes, and
attorneys’ fees expended to bring the instant action, the motion is GRANTED.
In all other respects, the motion is DENIED.
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony [Docket No. 37]
DATED: March 28, 2017
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Court
- 25 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?