# UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2006)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Airs%3A4da050fe081dcdf1

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
Complainant
v.

Complaint No. 2006-19

GEORGE DIEHL, CPA,
Respondent
Lawrence T. Emert, Esq.,
for the Complainant.
Ronald J. Aiello, Esq. (Borah Goldstein
Altshuler & Nahins PC),
for the Respondent.

DECISION

STEVEN DAVIS, Administrative Law Judge: This matter arises from a
complaint issued on September 18, 2006, by the Director, Office of Professional
Responsibility, Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (OPR),
pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 10.60 (also referred to as Section 10.60 of the Treasury
Department Circular No. 230).
The complaint seeks to have the Respondent, George Diehl, (Respondent or
Diehl), a certified public accountant engaged in practice before the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), disbarred from such practice for having engaged in disreputable
conduct in violation of the provisions of 31 C.F. R. § 10.50 (a). Specifically, it is
alleged that Diehl threatened to kill IRS agent Maimouna Diakite in violation of 31
C.F.R. §10.51 generally, and §10.51(k) by the use of abusive language.
Section 10.51 (k) states in relevant part that n[d]isreputable [sic] conduct for
which a practitioner may be censured, suspended or disbarred from practice includes
... contemptuous conduct in connection with practice before the Internal Revenue
Service, including the use of abusive language...."
The Respondent's answer denies that he threatened Diakite, and on May 1
and June 1, 2007, a hearing was held before me in New York, NY at which the
parties were given a full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
present other evidence and argument. Closing arguments were made at the

conclusion of the hearing and the parties waived the filing of proposed findings and
conclusions of law and supporting reasons.

Upon the entire record, and based on my observation of the demeanor of the
witnesses, I made the following:

Findings of Fact

The Government's Evidence
The Respondent, George Diehl, a 69 year old army veteran, is a certified
public accountant, having been licensed by New York State in December, 1989.
(b)(3)/26 use
6103

In 2003, Taxpayer 1’s
tax return was audited and she authorized the
Respondent to act as her representative in dealing with the IRS. It was determined
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
that Taxpayer 1
About five appointments were scheduled whereby Taxpayer 1 or the
Respondent could meet with tax compliance officer Rudolph Charles and discuss the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
and submit documentation which included
Some of those appointments were made at the reguest of the
Respondent. Neither the Respondent nor Taxpayer 1 appeared at any of those
interviews. Diehl testified that he did not appear and he cancelled the meetings
because Taxpayer 1 was unable to obtain the reguested documentation and he
believed that no purpose would be served by attending the meeting without such
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
documentation. As a result the matter was
and
(
b
)
(
3
)
/
2
6
USC
6103
"no-show." No challenge was made thereafter in Tax Court to the

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Diehl then
requested reconsideration, and requested additional time to produce documentation.
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
Accordingly, in

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Maimouna Diakite. a collection or contact representative who was
employed by the IRS for about one year and who worked in Detroit, Michigan. Her
duties are to attempt to resolve tax matters and collect money.
The following is based on Diakite's testimony which I credit for the reasons set
forth below. She stated that Taxpayer 1 was upset and angry, claiming that the IRS

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
unfairly
information that Diehl had previously submitted.

while failing to review the

Diakite examined the data on her computer and explained to Taxpayer 1 the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
history of the matter: certain information was not received,

Thereafter, certain information was received,

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Their

conversation was ten to fifteen minutes.

Taxpayer 1, [redacted], asked Diakite to speak to him because she gave him
the information to send to the IRS. Diakite introduced herself to Diehl, and pursuant
to IRS protocol gave her last name and identification number. Diakite asked for his
name and verified that he was the registered representative of Taxpayer 1 and noted
his address as being in New York.
Diakite told Diehl that Taxpayer 1 said that she gave him information to send
to the IRS but that the IRS did not receive that information before the specified
deadline, and (b)(3)/26 USC 6103 . Diehl told her that he sent the documents, but later
admitted that he sent them in late because he was busy with other matters before the
IRS. He asked for Diakite's fax number so that he could send her proof that he was
working on other matters. Diakite refused, saying that Taxpayer 1's case was the
b 3 /26 USC 6103
only one under consideration. Diakite told Diehl that

Diakite stated that at the start of the conversation, Diehl's demeanor was
professional and appropriate. However he became more heated or irate when he
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
asked her to

. Diakite refused, telling Diehl that the IRS had given him enough time to provide
the information requested. In making this statement, Diakite was aware that Taxpayer

1

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Diakite stated that she offered to

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

so that she would have more time to provide further information. She also told him
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
that

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
Diakite stated that Diehl refused to
Diakite testified that he became irate and loud, saying that he had obtained

(b)(3)/

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
1 In this regard, Diakite stated that it was within her discretion to
but she believed that the Respondent was “procrastinating” in settling the matter simply to “buy more
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
time” and she chose

26 USC
6103

routinely, and asked to speak to Diakite's supervisor. Diakite told him that,
pursuant to IRS procedure, her supervisor would call him within 24 hours. He insisted
on talking to her supervisor immediately. Diakite then, also pursuant to protocol, told
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
him that

Diakite testified that Diehl became very upset and said "do you know what I do
to people like you. I kill them." Diakite replied "you don't mean that, sir" and Diehl
replied "I do. I do. I'll kill you." Diakite then sat at her desk repeating to herself aloud
that Diehl said that he would kill her and he is in New York. She became frightened
and then heard a male voice, not Diehl's, saying "what are you doing?" and the
phone was then disconnected. The call, in which she spoke with Taxpayer 1 for
about 15 minutes and with the Respondent for about 15 minutes, was not recorded.2

Taxpayer 1 credibly denied that she was present with the Respondent during
the material part of his conversation with Diakite.
Bernice Reeves, a lead collection representative, sits in an adjoining work­
space to Diakite. Her work area and Diakite's share a common wall. Reeves testified
that she heard Diakite say in a distressed, nervous, fearful voice "you did not mean
that." Reeves, whose job is to assist 12 collection officers including Diakite
approached her and asked if she was all right. Diakite told her in a shaky voice that
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
the person she was talking to wanted
and became
abusive when she told him that she could not grant that request. Diakite quoted Diehl
as asking if she knew what he did to people like her, he kills them. Reeves stated that
Diakite appeared "visibly shaken," noting that she had never seen Diakite in this
condition in the one year that she was her lead. Diakite said that she was afraid and
asked if their building was secure and whether Diehl can "get to me." Reeves
assured her it would be all right since Diehl was not in Detroit.

Reeves directed Diakite to report the threat to her manager and supervisor
Chantay Marie Ross. Following protocol which requires that the agent make a
contemporaneous report of any conversation with a taxpayer or representative,
Diakite then typed in her computer the following note, in relevant part, which was
written within minutes of the telephone call:3

He [Diehl] admitted that he sent the documents late and
he requested
to re-submit the documents.
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
Told him that I will not
and send the document
after. He requested to talk to my manager. Told him that
2 There was much evidence as to the recording-capability of the telephones at the Detroit office, none
of which was relevant to the issue here - whether a threat was made by the Respondent.
3 There was some confusion as to whether the note was written immediately after the call or after her
meeting with the Inspector General’s representative which took place within minutes of the call.
Regardless of the precise timing it is clear that it was written shortly after the call and reflected her
current, fresh account of the call.

she will contract [sic] him within 24 hours. I gave him the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
. He
became very irate and asked me if I knew what he does to
people like me, and he added that he kills them. Told him
that he does not mean what he said. He stated again: "I
will kill you" and disconnects the call.
Diakite gave the note to manager Ross who testified that she found Diakite
nervous, upset and scared, demeanor which she had never seen in Diakite before or
after. Ross asked what happened and Diakite said that a taxpayer's representative
had just threatened to kill her. Ross immediately reported the threat to the Inspector
General's office. Quickly thereafter, a representative from that office interviewed
Diakite and asked her to make a written statement. Diakite stated that during the
interview she was shaking. She prepared a separate statement which was virtually
identical to the one she wrote, above.

After speaking to the Inspector General's representative, Ross told Diakite to
take a break and calm down. She went outside the building for 30 minutes and then
remained away from her desk during her regularly scheduled break, taking a total of
60 to 90 minutes away from work.

Thereafter, Diakite took no time off from work and reported to work the
following day, as usual. She stated that in all the conversations she has had with
taxpayers or their representatives prior to this one, she never felt frightened, upset,
nervous or distressed.
Tanya Ferguson, an experienced Special Agent for the Inspector General for
Tax Administration interviewed the Respondent on July 19. She testified, and the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
report of her interview stated that he asked Diakite
but she refused. Ferguson quoted the
Respondent as telling her that he "blew up" at Diakiti, meaning that he became angry
at her, telling her "you are killing me with all of this bullshit." Ferguson stated that the
Respondent denied threatening Diakite or telling her that he would kill her. The
Respondent admitted that he probably raised his voice and used profanity during
their conversation, and offered that Diakiti may have felt threatened because he was
angry at her. Ferguson stated that when she interviewed Diakite by phone on July 19
she detected that Diakite was upset and very nervous as exhibited by her shaking
voice.

Ferguson's opinion was that Diakite's version of the events was credible. She
concluded that the Respondent threatened her, although Ferguson did not believe
that Diehl would carry out his threat. She referred this matter to the United States
Attorney's Office for criminal prosecution, but that office declined to prosecute
because it did not meet prosecutorial guidelines. She recommended that the matter
be referred to the IRS for administrative action.
Diakite testified that after hearing Diehl's threat she believed that, through the
internet, Diehl could use her distinctive name to obtain her home address. She stated

that she was and is concerned about the safety of her family. She did not report the
threat to local police authorities because she followed IRS protocol which simply
required her to report the matter to her manager.
Diakite testified that in the thousands of calls she has handled, 40 to 60 per
day, 40% to 50% of the callers are angry, but she has never gotten angry at a
taxpayer. Her reasoning is that they have a dispute with the IRS, not with her and she
does not take their anger personally. Ordinarily they do not direct their anger at her.
Diakite denied speaking to the Respondent in a raised voice. She also denied
being disciplined for making false statements or for any other conduct-related
matters. Although she has been yelled at by taxpayers she had never been
threatened. She knew that the Respondent was a professional person, a CPA, but
knew nothing of his personal nature or criminal background.

In the one year that Reeves was Diakite's lead and Ross was her manager,
they did not discipline her for making a false statement or for any misconduct. Nor did
they receive any complaints concerning how she treated taxpayers or their
representatives. Both stated that Diakite properly handled the call with the
Respondent.
In testimony which bolstered her credibility, Diakite stated that following her
conversation with the Respondent, she found herself inappropriately recommending
that levies imposed on accounts be released when the taxpayers became upset while
talking to her. She did this in an effort to placate angry taxpayers and prevent them
from becoming upset or threatening toward her. Ultimately, the levies were not
released because her lead, who has final authority over releasing levies, refused to
permit such action. In other such actions, she referred the matter to her lead so that
the taxpayer would not "blame" or "threaten" her.

The Respondent's Evidence
Diehl has been a CPA for 18 years. His clients include private and business
taxpayers for whom he has had hundreds of telephone and in-person interviews with
IRS agents. During all of that time, until the present matter, no complaints had been
filed against him by the IRS or by any licensing authority. He has not been arrested
or convicted of any crime, and denied threatening any IRS agent during his contacts
with them. He stated that whenever he speaks to an agent by phone he assumes that
the call is recorded and therefore would not make an improper comment. Indeed,
(b)(3)/26
Taxpayer 1's tax return,
Rudolph Charles, the tax compliance officer who USC
6103
stated that he had several phone conversations with the respondent, during which
Diehl was not rude or angry.

In 1990, Diehl [redacted]. He offered to help [redacted], Taxpayer 1, without
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
fee, regarding her
. As set forth above, the IRS claimed that

Taxpayer 1 initiated the call with Diakite. She described their conversation as
"heated," in which they may have raised their voices. She testified that Diakite said
that she had not presented documentation of (b)(3)/26 USC 6103 and was "adamant" that
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
Taxpayer 1
. Taxpayer 1 denied
and challenged how Diakite could decide that (b)(3)/26 USC 6103 if she was
not given the opportunity to present her documentation.
Taxpayer 1 asked Diehl to speak to the agent and then left the room.
Taxpayer 1 denied hearing the alleged threat made by Diehl. Hours later, Taxpayer 1
was told by Diehl that he called the Holtsville, NY office of the IRS and
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
. He did not mention his conversation

with Diakite.
Diehl testified that in speaking to Diakite he sought to
(b)(3)/26 USC
6103

. Diehl claimed that he had been able (b)(3)/26 USC 6103
writing to the IRS office in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.

by

Diehl testified that when he picked up the phone Diakite was immediately
"aggressive" with him -"fighting mad," repeating twice that Taxpayer 1
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
, and repeating twice that
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
she was "not listening to this," concluding that she wanted
Diehl claimed that he was "getting annoyed" that Diakite would not listen to him when
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
he said that Taxpayer 1 could

Although Diehl was aware that
account, he denied that Diakite told him that

had already been placed on the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Rather, he
stated that he told her that he had sent a letter to Bensalem requesting that the
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
. Diehl stated that he offered to
fax the letter to Diakite but did not ask for her fax number because she refused to
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
accept anything and would not
Conceding that he was becoming frustrated with Diakite because she would
not listen to him, he testified that he became angry at her and raised his voice when
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
, telling her that "you
she said that she would
are killing me with your stupidity," but then later testified that he said "you are killing
me with your bullshit." He accused of her not knowing the law and asked to speak to
her supervisor which she denied. Diehl said that he then told her that he would
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
and that he would
contact another agent in order to
present the evidence required. This contradicts Diakite's testimony that she

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

. The conversation ended.
He denied threatening Diakite, and denied hearing her talk to herself or repeat the
alleged threat he made. He also denied that anyone else was in the room when he
spoke to her.
Diehl stated that in the hundreds of conversations he has had with IRS agents
he never became angry at them, lost his temper or raised his voice even where they
refused to grant the relief or take the action he requested. Significantly, however, he
conceded that in this conversation, alone among the hundreds he has had, he
became angry with Diakite, lost his temper with her and raised his voice to her
because she "blew up" at him, was "very nasty" to him and "egged him on." However,
all that he could cite as misbehavior on her part is that she applied the IRS law and
regulations as she believed they should be applied.

Perhaps Diakite did misapply IRS laws and regulations. As she conceded, she
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
had discretion to
Taxpayer 1's account but chose to "follow the
book." Further, this may have caused Diehl to become angry and lose his temper
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
since it was his experience that
in these circumstances.
However, the fact remains that although Diehl believed that Diakite's actions were
improper that did not and cannot justify his threatening her.
Diehl denied threatening Diakite in any way. He stated that he had been
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
successful in
and therefore would
not have been motivated to threaten an IRS agent for a case (b)(3)/26 USC 6103
He denied knowing her name or her work location and therefore could not have
believably threatened to kill her.
Diehl's explanation for why Diakite might falsely accuse him of threatening her
is that perhaps she took offense when he told her that she did not know the law and
asked to speak to her supervisor..

While Diehl claimed that Diakite was "verbally abusive" to him, he did not
report her alleged misconduct to anyone in the IRS or to investigating agent
Ferguson basically because he did not want her to take adverse action against
Taxpayer 1 because of his complaint. However, it appears that, even based on
Diehl's testimony, Diakite was not abusive. Rather, she simply denied his reguest for
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
, all matters
within her authority and discretion to decide.

Sometime thereafter,

(b)(3)/26 USC 6103

Character Evidence
In addition to Taxpayer 1, the Respondent presented three character
witnesses, Witness 1, Diehl's supervisor at the state agency for 12 years and for
whom Diehl prepared his federal tax returns; Witness 2, a friend and neighbor for 10

years; and Witness 3, an insurance agent and friend for 10 years for whom Diehl
prepares tax returns.

Their testimony may be summarized as follows: Diehl does not have a
reputation for being violent. Rather he is a gentleman, calm, peaceable, low-key,
avoids controversy, never lost his temper, never threatened anyone, nothing fazes
him, and when provoked or antagonized his reaction is to be calm, quiet and leave
the area.

Each of the above witnesses stated that they did not know how Diehl would
behave or react when speaking to an IRS agent who did not agree with his position,
although Witness 2 did recount that perhaps she heard Diehl speak once by phone in
a "firm but calm" way to an IRS agent. Of course, none overheard his conversation
with Diakite.

Analysis and Discussion
This case presents a sharp credibility issue. Diakite testified that during a
telephone conversation Diehl threatened to kill her. Diehl denies making the threat.
In crediting Diakite's testimony and finding that Diehl threatened her I rely on
several factors. First, Diakite's testimony was forthright, candid and delivered in a
most believable way. Her testimony that she was genuinely frightened by Diehl's
remarks and immediately sought assurance from her supervisors that she would be
safe supported her testimony that she was threatened. She immediately recorded in
her computer at her desk the threat she received and shortly thereafter wrote an
identical statement for an investigator. Her testimony at trial as to the threat was
identical to what she wrote at the time it occurred. Further, her supervisors observed
her obvious distress and nervousness immediately after the call and directed that she
calm down and take some time to collect herself. They had never seen her in that
condition.
Diakite had no reason to lie about her conversation with Diehl. The
Respondent can only offer that she was motivated to lie because he asked to speak
to her supervisor and perhaps she would be disciplined for not knowing the law.
However, Diakite believably testified that requests to speak to an agent's supervisor
were routine and were customarily granted and her supervisors stated that her
handling of the call was proper. She therefore had no reason to fear any discipline.

Further bolstering her testimony are her post-threat efforts to placate
taxpayers who she believed might threaten her. She credibly testified that following
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
her conversation with Diehl she was inclined to
even though she believed that she could not properly
take such action. Certainly, as an agent who sought to "follow the book" prior to the
threat it may be found that this new tendency was caused by something traumatic the threat to her life by Diehl. The fact that she did not file a complaint with the local
police department or seek his arrest does not detract from the fact that the threat
occurred. She believably testified that her obligation was to report the threat to her

supervisors and they processed the matter promptly by referring it to the Inspector
General's department which itself has powers of arrest and referral for criminal
prosecution.
Diehl has an admirable record in that he served in the military, earned
bachelors and masters degrees and achieved the professional status of becoming a
CPA. I credit his testimony that he believed that he represented his clients in a highly
professional way. I also find that the character witnesses in his behalf were all
honest, completely believable people.
Unfortunately I find that his professionalism suffered a lapse in his
conversation with Diakite. While testifying that he never became angry with other IRS
agents, and never lost his temper or raised his voice with them, he stated that he did
so with Diakite here. His reasons for doing so were that she became "aggressive"
with him and was "fighting mad." Nevertheless, he never reported her allegedly
improper conduct to the appropriate authorities. Even assuming she acted in such a
manner that did not permit Diehl to threaten her.

First, Diehl acted unprofessionally in losing his temper and raising his voice
simply because Diakite applied the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations as she
believed they should be applied. Second, the fact that he conceded that this was the
only conversation among hundreds he has had where he acted in such an
inappropriate manner supports a finding that he went even further by threatening her
when she denied the action he sought.
I find that Diehl threatened Diakite. His credibility was shaken by first stating
that his words to her was that you are "killing me with your stupidity and then
changing that testimony to state that you are "killing me with your bullshit." It is also
odd that if he had a letter from Bensalem which stated that (b)(3)/26 USC 6103
why he did not send such a letter to Diakite. His explanation was that
Diakite refused to accept it. But he could have sent it nevertheless with a copy to her
supervisor or a copy to IRS offices in Bensalem or Holtsville. Further, the fact that he
(b)(3)/26 USC 6103
was unable to obtain any
supports a finding that
either the requested documentation was either never provided or that the IRS did not
(b)(3)/26 USC6103
believe that such evidence warranted

As set forth above, the Respondent's character witnesses were sincere,
honest people, all friends of Diehl, who could only testify as to their business or social
relationship with him during which he acted gentlemanly and professionally. None, of
course, was present during his conversation with Diakite and none could with
certainty describe how he actually acted during a discussion with an IRS agent.
In conclusion, I find that Diehl threatened to Diakite as alleged.

Sanction
The complaint seeks to have the Respondent disbarred from practice before
the IRS because of his threat to Diakite. Although the Director's determination as to

the sanction sought is entitled to some deference, I have decided that a suspension
from practice for a period of six months is more appropriate.
I am aware of the seriousness of the allegation against Diehl, the effect the
threat has had on Diakite, and the importance of deterring such conduct by other
certified professional accountants.

However, in view of the singular nature of the offense committed by Diehl, the
fact that he has been a CPA for 18 years and has an unblemished record before the
IRS and before other licensing agencies, I find that, under all the circumstances, a
suspension for six months is appropriate.
I find that the allegation against Diehl has been proven by clear and
convincing evidence in the record, the standard provided in 31 C.F.R. § 10.76 to
support the sanction of suspension of practice for a period of six months or longer.

Conclusions of Law
1. The Respondent George Diehl, is a certified public accountant who has
practiced before the Internal Revenue Service and is subject to the disciplinary
authority of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director, Office of Professional
Responsibility.
2. The Respondent violated the provisions of 31 C.F.R. §10.51 generally, and
§10.51(k) by the use of abusive language in threatening to kill IRS agent Maimouna
Diakite on July 12, 2005. That violation has been proven by clear and convincing
evidence in the record.

3. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the entire
record, pursuant to 31 C.F.R. §10.76, I issue the following:

ORDER4
The Respondent, George Diehl, is suspended from practice before the Internal
Revenue Service for a period of six months commencing on June 25, 2007.

Dated at Washington, D C June 20, 2007

/s/
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge
4 Pursuant to 31 C.F.R. § 10.77, either party may appeal this Decision to the Secretary of the Treasury
within thirty (30) days from the date of issuance of this Decision.

CERTIFICATION OF RECORD
I, Steven Davis, Administrative Law Judge, hereby certify that the attached
documents consisting of the following:

1. Two volumes of transcripts of the hearing held on May 1 and June 1, 2007.
2. Complainant Exhibits:

C-1 -Cover letter transmitting Complaint with Complaint attached, both dated
September 18, 2006.
C-2 -Cover letter transmitting Answer to the Complaint, with Answer dated
October 18, 2006, attached.

C-3 -Consisting of documents filed after nine file tabs.
C-5. -Maimouna Diakite's computer record of the incident.
Note: C-4 was rejected and is not included in the Exhibit file.

constitute the complete administrative record in the matter of Director, Office of
Professional Responsibility v. George Diehl, CPA, Complaint No. 2006-19.

Dated: Washington, D.C. June 20, 2007

/s/
Steven Davis
Administrative Law Judge

CERTICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing Decision was sent by first class mail on this 20th
day of June, 2007 to each of the following:

Laurence T. Emert, Esq.
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service
Office of Chief Counsel
Associate Chief Counsel General Legal Services
Redacted
New York, NY 10038
Ronald J. Aiello, Esq.
Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler,
Nahims & Goidel, P.C.
Redacted
New York, NY 10013-3993

George Diehl, CPA
Redacted
Belle Harbor, NY (b)(6)

Elizabeth Ahn, Esq.
Office of Professional Responsibility
Internal Revenue Service
SE:OPR Redacted
Redacted
Washington, DC 20224

(Signature Illegible)
Secretary, Division of Judges
National Labor Relations Board

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Airs%3A4da050fe081dcdf1. Public record. Not legal advice.