Experienced  Attorney David M. Garvin will represent you in all tax fraud matters as it has for the past 30 years.

Tax Lawyer David M. Garvin can be reached at (305) 371-8101, he be glad to talk to you about any criminal matter that you
may be facing.

He is the perfect IRS Attorney to represent you when a income tax or any criminal tax matter arises, his trial records speak for

White Collar Criminal,FBAR, FATCA,OVDP ( Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program ),Fraud, IRS Lawyer, with ample experience in all
facets of tax and criminal related matters, simple or complex.

Criminal Tax Attorney David M. Garvin will represent you in Federal or Civil court with any alleged white collar crime.

Top rated Tax Fraud Lawyer with over 30 years of experience and with a track record that will impress you.
David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Board Certified Tax Fraud Attorney.

Ft. Lauderdale Tax Attorney David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Board certified and AV and AVVO rated attorney.

The streamlined filing compliance procedures described below are available to taxpayers certifying that their failure to report
foreign financial assets and pay all tax due in respect of those assets did not result from willful conduct on their part.
The streamlined procedures are designed to provide to taxpayers in such situations (1) a streamlined procedure for filing
amended or delinquent returns and (2) terms for resolving their tax and penalty obligations. 
These procedures will be available for an indefinite period until otherwise announced.

As reflected below, the streamlined filing procedures that were first offered on September 1, 2012 have been expanded and
modified to accommodate a broader group of U.S. taxpayers.  Major changes to the streamlined procedures include: 
(1) extension of eligibility to U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States,
(2) elimination of the $1,500 tax threshold, and
(3) elimination of the risk assessment process associated with the streamlined filing compliance procedure announced in 2012.

General eligibility for the streamlined procedures: 
The modified streamlined filing compliance procedures are designed for only individual taxpayers, including estates of individual
taxpayers.  The streamlined procedures are available to both U.S. individual taxpayers residing outside the United States and U.S.
individual taxpayers residing in the United States.  Descriptions of the specific eligibility requirements for the streamlined
procedures for both non-U.S. residents (the "Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures") and U.S. residents
(the "Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures") are set forth below.

Taxpayers using either the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures or the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures
will be required to certify, in accordance with the specific instructions set forth below, that the failure to report
all income, pay all tax, and submit all required information returns, including FBARs (FinCEN Form 114, previously Form TD F 90-22.1),
was due to non-willful conduct.

If the IRS has initiated a civil examination of a taxpayer's returns for any taxable year, regardless of whether the
examination relates to undisclosed foreign financial assets, the taxpayer will not be eligible to use the streamlined procedures. 
Taxpayers under examination may consult with their agent.  Similarly, a taxpayer under criminal investigation by IRS
Criminal Investigation is also ineligible to use the streamlined procedures.

The implementation of FATCA and the ongoing efforts of the IRS and the Department of Justice to ensure compliance by
those with U.S. tax obligations have raised awareness of U.S. tax and information reporting obligations with respect
to non-U.S. investments.  Because the circumstances of taxpayers with non-U.S. investments vary widely, the IRS offers
the following options for addressing previous failures to comply with U.S. tax and information return obligations with
respect to those investments:

Eligibility for the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures like Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP)

In addition to having to meet the general eligibility criteria described above, individual U.S. taxpayers, or estates of individual
U.S. taxpayers, seeking to use the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures described in this section must: 
(1) meet the applicable non-residency requirement described below (for joint return filers, both spouses must meet the applicable
non-residency requirement described below) and (2) have failed to report the income from a foreign financial asset and pay tax as
required by U.S. law, and may have failed to file an FBAR (FinCEN Form 114, previously Form TD F 90-22.1) with respect to a foreign
financial account, and such failures resulted from non-willful conduct.  Non-willful conduct is conduct that is due to negligence,
inadvertence, or mistake or conduct that is the result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.

For information on the meaning of foreign financial asset, see the instructions for FinCEN Form 114, which may be found at
FinCen and the instructions for Form 8938, which may be found at Instructions for Form 8938.

Voluntary Disclosure Program Specialist

Tax attorney David M. Garvin

        •   The hiring of a defense attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.  

        •   Before you make any decision, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.  

        •   This web site is designed for general information only.  

        •   The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a counselor/client relationship.  

        •   Serious representation for serious legal matters.     

                                  Miami Criminal Tax Attorney
                                     Contact our office today:
                                                                                    Miami                 200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
                                                                                                               (305) 371-8101 or email us at ontrial2@gmail.com

                                      Available for consultation    
                                                                                    Ft. Lauderdale   (954) 640-1414  
                                                                                    Tampa                (813) 413-0140  
                                                                                    Orlando              (407) 218-4650  

    The tax defense firm of David M. Garvin, P.A. has proudly provided exemplary legal services to clients throughout the United States including Orlando,  
Tampa, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Naples, Hollywood, Miami Beach, Coral Gables, Key West, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Los  
Angeles, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Knoxville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, San Diego, Little Rock, Cleveland, Washington  
DC, Las Vegas and Boston. Servicing Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Monroe County, Leon County, Duval County and  
Collier County.

Visit our other sites:        |  Miami Criminal and Tax | Tampa | Orlando | Ft. Lauderdale | Jacksonville | Ft. Myers | Palm Beach | White Collar Crime | Tax Fraud |

The Firm of David M. Garvin, P.A. in Miami, Florida holds a Martindale-Hubbell AV Rating (Highest rating) and has been a member of the Bar Registry of Preeminent  
Lawyers, Criminal Attorney Section as well as a Martindale-Hubbell Preeminent Lawyer, Tax Attorney - Tax defense Section member since 1999. Mr. Garvin has been  
selected by Super Lawyer Magazine each year since 2006 - White Collar Criminal Attorney - Criminal tax defense and was selected for the Top Florida Lawyers List 2006  
White Collar Criminal Attorney - Criminal Lawyer. Mr. Garvin was selected by Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, and recognized as an outstanding attorney in the  
area of criminal defense : White Collar Crime, Tax Fraud, Voluntary Disclosure Program, FATCA. David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Certified since 1990, with a Masters in  
tax law 1987, a Juris Doctor in law 1982, and a Certified Public Accountant since 1982.

Need a IRS defense counselor?

If you are seeking an Appeal or an IRS Tax Attorney, if you are in need to be represented by an experienced attorney in matters like Voluntary Disclosure Program, then  
Miami Tax and White Collar Attorney David M. Garvin is your IRS Tax Lawyer of choice, he will handle your alleged Tax Fraud, Tax Violations, IRS Investigations, Insider  
Trader, Internet Crime, Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, FATCA, OVDP and white collar crime matters with a proven record.     

                                                                      Tax Attorney David M. Garvin can be reached at (305) 371-8101.

                                                                                                                     For Family and Immigration Matters Click Here
Miami Tax Attorney Proud recipient of the Daily Business Review's Most Effective Lawyer Award for 2010 in the area of complex litigation
Law Firm - IRS Attorney - Criminal Law
Miami Tax Attorney SiteMiami Tax Attorney Site
Tampa SiteTampa Site
Tax Blog Publication
Helio Castroneves Trial
Julio Robaina Acquitted
Julio Robaina Acquitted
Friday, July 25, 2014
It was a resounding victory for the Robainas, who had repeatedly blamed mistakes by their accountant for the failure to report that income on their tax returns. "

Posted on Tuesday, 04.29.14 on Miami Herald by Jay Weaver

Former Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina bowed his head in relief and his wife, Raiza, teared up Tuesday as a Miami federal jury found the couple not guilty on charges of conspiring to avoid paying taxes on $2 million in income and lying to authorities.

It was a resounding victory for the Robainas, who had repeatedly blamed mistakes by their accountant for the failure to report that income on their tax returns. Federal prosecutors had declared them "tax cheats" who hid their earnings from the U.S. government throughout the two-week trial.

Outside the courthouse, Julio Robaina, a two-term Hialeah mayor who ran for Miami-Dade mayor in 2011, gave thanks for their acquittals by the 12-person federal jury, which began deliberations late Monday after a two-week trial.

"I told all of you from the beginning that we were going to vindicate our name, and that the truth is the truth," Robaina, 49, told reporters. "Our name has been vindicated with the truth."

Asked how her testimony affected the jury, Raiza Robaina, 40, echoed her husband. "The truth," she said. "There is nothing else to say except that I told the truth, and that's all there is."

"We're not going to talk about the trial," her husband said. "We're going to talk about the future, and we're going to continue to be able to work to help this community."

Julio Robaina's acquittal marked the second time in recent history that a Hialeah mayor has survived a federal criminal indictment. In the 1990s, legendary Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, who attended much of Robaina's trial, beat corruption charges.

The couple's trial spotlighted Hialeah's "shadow" banking industry of high-interest loans. As a sitting mayor, Robaina loaned $750,000 to a Ponzi schemer, Luis Felipe Perez, who would eventually be convicted of swindling $40 million from the couple and dozens of other investors.

During closing arguments Monday, the couple's defense attorney, David Garvin, had argued they were "victims" of the unscrupulous jewelry investor, accusing Perez of lying on the witness stand to curry favor for a reduction in his prison sentence.

The couple's attorney also said the Robainas became targets of overzealous Internal Revenue Service agents, who aimed to take out a prominent politician. The former Hialeah mayor lost to Carlos Gimenez in the runoff for Miami-Dade County mayor while Robaina was under investigation.

During closing arguments Monday, the couple's defense attorney, David Garvin, had argued they were "victims" of the unscrupulous jewelry investor, accusing Perez of lying on the witness stand to curry favor for a reduction in his prison sentence.

The couple's attorney also said the Robainas became targets of overzealous Internal Revenue Service agents, who aimed to take out a prominent politician. The former Hialeah mayor lost to Carlos Gimenez in the runoff for Miami-Dade County mayor while Robaina was under investigation.

"[Perez] gave them someone bigger than him: the mayor of Hialeah," Garvin told jurors. "They took his word on it. When they started this investigation, they were already convinced that Julio Robaina was guilty of a crime."

"Julio and Raiza Robaina were not treated fairly," Garvin said during closing arguments, adding that the IRS never conducted a civil audit of the couple's tax return, only a criminal probe.

Prosecutors admitted that Perez, the government's star witness, was a "con artist" who hoped to shave time off his 10-year prison sentence for his diamond investment scheme.

But they also revealed that Perez kept financial records showing he paid 36 percent interest on the loans from the Robainas, half in checks and half in cash - cash that prosecutors contend he kept secret from his wife.

The $300,000 in cash payments were just one chunk of some $2 million in income that prosecutors say the Robianas failed to report on income tax returns in a scheme to avoid taxes between 2005 and 2010.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Gregorie told the jurors that the mayor's loan deal with Perez was a "shadowy business that had no business going on."

Julio Robaina, who made a small fortune during the real estate boom converting apartments to condos, used his profits to make high-interest loans through his wife's two loan companies, MR Holdings and RVR Holdings.

However, the Robainas' defense attorney, Garvin, said that his clients were victims of "Hurricane Felipito," who stole millions from them and others to buy a pair of homes in Miami Beach and Coral Gables, a fleet of cars including a Rolls-Royce, and diamonds and other jewelry.

"He had no heart, no conscience and no morals," Garvin told the jurors.

Garvin insisted that the Robainas, who set up two loan companies registered to the wife so the husband could avoid a conflict of interest as mayor, charged Perez no more than 18 percent interest and never received cash payments from him.

"The whole Perez thing is a fabrication," Garvin said.

Garvin tried to raise reasonable doubt among the jurors by suggesting that a Hialeah power broker named Rolando Blanco, who died in 2007, matched up Robaina and Perez and later pocketed whatever cash may have been delivered to the Blanco residence for the mayor to collect there.

But Gregorie told jurors that no evidence was presented at trial by either Perez or Blanco's son, Roberto, or any other witnesses to support that claim. "There's no one who came in here and said the Blancos are stealing your money," Gregorie said.

The Robainas each faced tax-evasion conspiracy charges, and two false tax-return offenses for 2006 and 2007. Both were accused of additional counts of lying to federal authorities that the mayor had "no involvement" in his wife's loan companies.

Julio Robaina was also charged with lying to authorities about never receiving any cash payments from Perez.

Had they been convicted of any of the charges, the couple could have faced several years in prison and IRS fines.

Robaina did not testify in his defense. Instead, he let his wife effectively speak for both of them, as she and the couple's defense attorney blamed their accountant for "mistakes" on their tax returns.

A member of the jury, who did not want to be identified, told reporters outside the federal courthouse that prosecutors did a good job of presenting tax documents and important testimony. But he said the jury found the prosecution's evidence lacked proof of "criminal intent" by the Robainas. In particular, he said the panel found there were communications problems between the Robainas and their accountant's firm that led to "human errors" on the couple's tax returns -- not evidence they tried to hide their income and deceive the IRS.

In addition, the jury member said the testimony of Perez, the convicted Ponzi schemer, was "taken with a grain of salt" because he was imprisoned for running a multimillion-dollar fraud scheme and was "looking for a sentence reduction." He also said the jurors agreed with Garvin's description of the Robainas as "victims" of Perez's scam.

At the closing arguments, Gregorie and fellow prosecutor Michael Davis slammed the Robainas for under-reporting income and over-reporting expenses in a "scam" run through the couple's two loan businesses and the then-mayor's company, Realty USA.

But proving the Robainas filed false tax returns proved challenging because of the financial complexity of the case and competing interpretations of the couple's tax records. Also, the government had no direct proof, such as a recording, of Julio Robaina's allegedly accepting cash payments from Perez, the Ponzi schemer.

The jury ultimately did not buy the prosecution's overall case.
After the verdicts were read, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro excused the jurors and ordered that the courtroom be locked for 15 minutes so that reporters could not follow them as they left the federal courthouse.

The judge then told the couple, parents of five children: "Mr. and Mrs. Robaina, the court is acquitting you of all counts. You are free to leave."

The Robainas hugged about 20 supporters in the courtroom, with Raiza Robaina openly crying. Julio Robaina shook his lawyer's hand and embraced him.

Then he beamed a broad smile.

Miller win his trial
Miller win his trial
Monday, August 27, 2012

From 1999 through 2007 Frank DeSantis, Jeffrey Jedlicki, and Michael Geraud owned and operated numerous boiler rooms throughout South Florida that fraudulently sold commodities and foreign currency options to the public.  As a result of their fraudulent acts, approximately 1000 investors lost over 47 million dollars.

As part of a plea agreement to receive a lower sentence, Desantis, Jedlicki, and Geraud pled guilty to conspiracy and testified that John Miller,  a CPA in South Florida, assisted the conspiracy by forming over 20 corporations and preparing bogus accounting records and tax returns to conceal their illegal scheme.

Miller pled not guilty to charges of conspiracy, obstruction and filing fraudulent tax returns.  Mr. Miller was represented at trial by criminal tax attorney, David M. Garvin.  Following a two week trial, Mr. Miller was found NOT GUILTY on all counts.

Tom Borell win by summary judgment
Tom Borell win by summary  judgment
Tuesday, September 18, 2012

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged that Mr. Borell had traded a large volume of Neff Corporation stock with "insider information" of an impending sale of the company.

     Mr. Kamin brought a private action seeking damages on the theory that he had sold the Neff stock during this period of time. David M. Garvin, Esq. Represented Mr. Borell. Mr. Garvin argued that there was no private duty owed to Mr. Kamin and that he could not maintain an action against Mr. Borell under the "misappropriation theory". The Court granted Mr. Garvin's motion to dismiss the case.

     Mr. Borell won his case against the SEC by summary judgment

How to be found Not Guilty
How to be found Not Guilty
Monday, October 08, 2012
How to Be Found Not Guilty
September 14, 2012
By Roger Russell, Senior Editor, Accounting Today

Few criminal tax cases are defended successfully, with the government boasting a conviction rate of 94 percent. So when the IRS used information from three jailed former boiler room operators to go after Boca Raton CPA John Miller, it didn't look good for Miller.  Nevertheless, he was cleared on all charges relating to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and filing fraudulent tax returns. Following a two-week trial in a Florida federal court, the jury took less than two hours to find Miller not guilty on all counts (see CPA Wins Fraud Trial on All Counts).

The three operated multiple boiler rooms throughout South Florida that fraudulently sold commodities and foreign currency options to the public, defrauding approximately 1,000 investors of over $47 million. They pleaded guilty to conspiracy and testified that Miller assisted them in the conspiracy by forming more than 20 corporations and preparing bogus accounting records and tax returns.

At trial, all three men, and their wives, testified against Miller, observed criminal defense attorney and CPA David Garvin, who defended Miller.  The reason for the government's high success rate is the fact that they get to select which cases to bring, and they have a substantial amount of resources they are willing to apply to the cases they choose to bring, according to Garvin. "The position of the government is that they enhance voluntary compliance by winning the overwhelming majority of criminal cases," he said. "The average taxpayer faces a situation in which the cards are stacked against them when defending a case like this, particularly when the government offers plea agreements and cooperation deals to witnesses that are presently incarcerated."

What did Miller do right that helped in his defense? "I would say that the first thing he did right is that his fees were always consistent for all his clients," said Garvin. "There were no special fees for these people. Also, he had good records that he formed corporations for all his clients, over 600 of them, so the fact that he was helping them form corporations didn't mean he was helping them cover up anything."

What would he have changed if he had it to do all over again? "In hindsight he wished that he had his clients sign a form that, if they're forming a corporation it is for legitimate business purposes and not for any illegal activity," Garvin said.

He would include "an acknowledgement that the information they provide to him to prepare returns is complete to the best of their knowledge and will be relied on, and reasonable inquiries will be made if it appears incomplete, but the tax preparer is not an auditor and is not responsible to audit the information. The client is responsible both for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided."

"All CPAs should take steps like these to protect themselves because Miller is not alone," said Garvin. "Many accountants have their clients drop off paperwork, and the CPA relies on it. Then they have very little in the way of protection if the client turns around and says the CPA knew it was false."

The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has reversed
The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has reversed
Thursday, February 02, 2012

The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has reversed the bank fraud conviction of Tim Parkes, who had been implicated in the downfall of Benton Banking Company.

The Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals has reversed the bank fraud conviction of Tim Parkes, who had been implicated in the downfall of Benton Banking Company. During the 2009 trial, the government offered the theory that Parkes and bank president Jimmy Goddard jointly created phony entities to disguise troubled loans to Parkes and his business, Remington Industries. The appeals court found no direct evidence showing Parkes had any knowledge of the fraud. The ruling chastised the judge for not permitting evidence of other bank fraud by Goddard and accused US Attorney Gary Humble of intentionally misleading the jury during closing arguments.

Parkes was convicted in September 2009 for 10 counts of bank fraud and has been in federal custody since the sentencing in December 2009.

In its reversal filing, the US Court of Appeals explained that the only piece of evidence connecting anyone at Remington to the 2002 fraudulent Benton Banking Company loans was a fax of company names Goddard received just before creating the fraudulent loans. Goddard created ten loans in order to break down two personal loans to Parkes and business partner Mark Mourier because those loans exceeded bank lending limits. Parkes argued that only Goddard intended the fraud.

"Surprisingly, the government offered no testimony from Goddard to establish that Parkes cooperated in, or even knew of, the scheme," the opinion says, adding "While that failure does not directly impact the sufficiency of the evidence, it does leave the evidentiary cupboard nearly bare."

The Appeals court said the government made no effort to prove Parkes had sent the fax or knew Goddard intended to defraud the bank. "What's more," the reversal states, "there was no evidence that Parkes even knew about the lending restrictions." Remington Industries had been loaned money in amounts in excess of the lending limits previously and no new money left the bank when the smaller loans were created. "At the end of the day, the government has not identified how Parkes benefited from the scheme," the reversal said.

In their filing, the Appeals Court also discusses two other errors Parkes identifies in his appeal that "may help illuminate why - in spite of fatal weaknesses in the government's case against Parkes - the jury saw fit to return a partial guilty verdict." The opinion says the district court improperly excluded evidence that Goddard had both an independent motive and an opportunity to perpetuate the fraud, leaving the jury questioning why Goddard would have repackaged Parkes' loans if Parkes wasn't involved.

During the trial Parkes unsuccessfully tried to offer the testimony of Carl Stephens, a local businessman who had borrowed money from Benton Bank. Stephens learned after Goddard left the bank that when he got behind on payments, Goddard had replaced his loan with false notes without his authorization. Parkes also sought to introduce an FDIC document that listed more than 300 other suspicious loans on the bank's books. Each of the loans was made to a person or entity at one of 13 addresses, mostly post office boxes. Parkes' appeal argued that Goddard had been embezzling money and falsifying loans for years. The reversal opinion agreed this gave Goddard "strong individual and independent reasons to disguise Remington's troubled loan history and to do it in secret."

The second error, characterized as "more troubling," was a comment made by Humble to the jury that "an acquittal would let [Parkes and Mourier] keep the $4 million." The opinion says Humble made the comment despite knowing that Parkes and Mourier had already paid off most of the money Remington had borrowed from Benton Bank. The appeals court notes that the prosecutor himself had moved to exclude any evidence that Parkes had agreed to repay Remington's debt and unfailingly objected to Parkes' efforts to offer repayment evidence. Although no evidence was permitted to show Parkes' repayment of the loans, evidence had been entered that showed the bank was forced to write off $4 million, leaving the jury to believe the bank lost $4 million.

The opinion says Humble's remarks, to which Parkes' attorney could not respond, were not only misleading and highly prejudicial, they were deliberately made and should have resulted in a mistrial.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict Parkes beyond reasonable doubt and reversed the convictions, ordering district court to enter a judgment of acquittal and vacate Parkes sentence.

The United States reports a conviction rate in excess of 90% in federal white collar crime cases and over 92% in federal criminal tax cases. It is estimated that less than 1% of all attorneys have successfully tried a federal criminal tax case. (Not guilty verdicts on all counts.)



Cases presented in this website are representative of the type of cases the law firm handles. Not all cases have been included. Speak to  a Board Certified Tax Attorney and specialist in federal criminal tax cases about your case
Former Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina
    Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Helio Castroneves
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Timothy Parkes
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Nation's Business Services
IRS Business Death Penalty DENIED.
U.S. v. Terry Elliot
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Armadoros
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Unkle
Not Guilty in all Counts.
S.E.C. v. Borell
    Judgment for the Defendant.
State of Florida v. Arthur Teele
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. John P. Miller
Not Guilty in all Counts.
U.S. v. Argomaniz
Reversed and Remanded.
U.S. v. Jose Chaoui
   Not Guilty in all Counts.

The results of past cases is not indicative of future results. Each case has its own unique facts which substantially affect its outcome.
Miami criminal tax attorney  David M. Garvin, has been recognized as one of the top criminal and tax defense lawyers in Florida.
Mr. Garvin holds a Martindale Hubbell AV rating, has been recognized by SuperLawyers (limited to the top 5% of attorneys in Florida) and was selected by the Daily Business Review as the "Most Effective Lawyer for 2010 in the area of complex litigation".
David M. Garvin, defends criminal cases alleging Tax Fraud, Commodities Fraud, Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud, Health-Care fraud,  Ponzi Schemes,  Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, False Statements,Voluntary Disclosure, Grand Jury and other serious white collar crimes.
Read IRS News and Events
Join Criminal Attorney David M. Garvin in Facebook
View the advice of our experienced team in YouTube
Read our Selexted RSS Feeds
View Mr. Garvin's Google Profile
Join me in LinkedIn
Rated by Superlawyers.com
Rated by Preeminent Lawyers
Meet our Staff
Video of our Law Firm and Attorney David M. Garvin
Before you talk to agents listen this advice
AV Rating by Martindale Hubell
Ft. Lauderdale SiteFt. Lauderdale Site
[Home][Practice Area][Law Firm][Trials][Attorney][News][Contact Us][Meet Our Staff][Newsletters]
[Sentencing Table][Resources][Site Map][Archives][Links][Blog][RSS]
My Profile
Copyright © 1999-2013
Tax Attorney David M. Garvin, P.A.

Web designed and maintained By
'Bobby' Rugilo
Check PageRank
View the advice of our experienced team in YouTube
Join Criminal Attorney David M. Garvin in Facebook
View Mr. Garvin's Google Profile
Join me in LinkedIn
[IRS][S.E.C.][A.I.C.P.A.][IFRS][A.C.F.E.][Chamber][Tax Code]
Follow me in Google +

Tax Attorney David M. Garvin, P.A.
200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 USA
Phone: (305) 371-8101 Website: