Cited by

(“Lawyers in this state sh ould henceforth understand clearly that .

(citing In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , ).

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 53-55 , -32 (1972).

More than 35 years ago, we warned that “disciplinary proceedings are mandatory in all cases of failure to file income tax returns” and that “for violations occurring hereafter, the discipline will consist of either suspension or disbarment.” In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 55

13 See also In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 50-54 , -32 (1972) (holding that a failure to file federal or state income tax returns violates an attorney’s oath of office and professional responsibility obligations).

is state income tax returns for 1992, 1993 and 1994, filed federal income tax returns late for five of the six years 1990-1995, did not timely file his federal or state employer’s quarterly withholding tax returns in 1990 and 1991 and did not timely pay the withholding taxed due thereon, in violation of Rule 8.4(b), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, and the court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

See In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

The referee concluded that respondent’s failure to file income tax returns violated Rules 8.4(b) and (d), MRPC, and this court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

In In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , we recognized that the late filing of income tax returns is professional misconduct of the most serious nature, but we have not uniformly imposed sanctions because of the unique substantive or procedural posture of the individual cases.

(MCPR) and that respondent’s conduct after August 31, 1985, violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), Minn. Rules of Prof.Conduct (MRPC), as well as this court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 55

Although the referee was not unmindful of the 18 year old dictum, first enunciated in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , to the effect that violation of obligations with respect to filing and paying personal income taxes would ordinarily result in disbarment or suspension, in making his recommendation for discipline, he noted certain factors in this case which he felt mitigated against the imposition of the extr

In 1972, however, this court decided In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , in which we held that failure to file tax returns is serious professional misconduct, and the bar was put on notice that for future violations there would ordinarily be suspension, except in extreme extenuating circumstances.

The referee found that respondent’s failure to file his tax returns on time in 1983 and 1984 violated DR 1-102(A)(5), (6) and was contrary to this court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , (failure to file income tax returns).

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 50

Prior to September 1, 1985, respondent’s failure to file those returns violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), MCPR, and thereafter Rule 8.4(d), MRPC, and our holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

He further found that such failure constituted serious professional misconduct in violation of DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), Minnesota Code of Professional Repon-sibility, and after September 1, 1985, in violation of Rules 8.4(b) and (d), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct as well as this court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

The Director of Lawyers Professional Responsibility filed with this court a petition in which it was alleged that the respondent William F. Orme had failed to timely file income tax returns and pay taxes owing in violation of disciplinary rules DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), Minnesota Code of Professional Responsibility (MCPR), and this court’s holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , as well, after August 31, 1985, as violating Rule 8.4(d) of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct.

Department of Revenue prepared Commissioner’s returns pursuant to statutory authority for the years 1980 through 1983; that substantial state taxes assessed pursuant to 1982 and 1983 commissioner’s returns has not been paid; and that respondent’s conduct in failing to file timely state and federal returns prior to September 1, 1985, violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6) and the holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , and that respondent’s conduct after August 31, 1985, violated Rule 8.4(d), Minnesota

3 Because those allegations are deemed admitted for failure to answer and by virtue of our July 22, 1987 order, Johnson’s failure to timely file 1981 and 1983 Minnesota individual income tax returns and to pay taxes due violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and (6), MCPR and In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47

In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47, 53-55 , -32 (1972).

ondent Milton D. Price, Jr. has failed to file timely Minnesota and United States individual income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983, and 1984, and that such conduct in so failing to make timely filings of those returns violated the disciplinary rules including but not necessarily limited to DR 1-102(A)(6), Minnesota Code of Professional Responsibility (MCPR), and the holding in In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , and that such continuing conduct after August 31, 1985, violated Rule 8.4(b) and (d),

In In re Bunker, 294 Minn. 47 , the court considered the case of an attorney whose misconduct consisted solely of failing to file federal, Minnesota, and Iowa state tax returns.