A telecommunications executive once called the biggest tax cheat in U.S. history is getting hit with new Internal Revenue Service demands seeking hundreds of millions of dollars just as he starts a nine-year federal prison term.

The IRS sent Walter C. Anderson a notice of deficiency for more than $180 million and additional fraud penalties totaling more than $130 million, according to a recent court filing by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan B. Menzer disclosed the tax demands in a recent memo to a federal judge seeking permission to share grand jury testimony with the IRS. Anderson is suing the IRS from federal prison in New Jersey.

In his lawsuit, Anderson, who made his fortune in telecommunications and once backed plans to privatize the Mir Space Station, disputes the IRS calculations, denies committing tax fraud and says his guilty plea wasn't voluntary, court documents show.

Anderson pleaded guilty in September 2006 to tax-evasion charges for failing to report more than $350 million in income on his 1998 and 1999 tax returns.

Authorities said the unpaid taxes from Anderson could have funded hundreds of new police officers and teachers in the District.

At Anderson's sentencing last year, U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman gave Anderson nine years in prison, but did not order him to make restitution to the IRS. The judge cited an error by prosecutors who failed to include probation as part of Anderson's plea agreement.

The ruling meant authorities would have to try to pursue restitution through civil courts.

"Party chairmen like the system, for obvious reasons, and people who run for the legislature are usually in a position where it's difficult to vote for something like this because their party leaders are opposed to it," state Sen. John DeFrancisco said after Wednesday's ruling. DeFrancisco, a Republican, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In New York, primary voters elect convention delegates who choose candidates for the judgeships. Once nominated, the candidates run on the general election ballot, frequently without opposition.

Unsuccessful candidates for judgeships and a watchdog group won a lawsuit challenging the system, and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it is very difficult for candidates to get on the ballot if they don't have the support of party leaders.

The rulings said candidates who are not the choice of party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts, saying there is nothing unconstitutional about the process. The high court said the state legislature is free to change the system if it wishes.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch — who was among a diverse group of politicians and legal groups asking the court to uphold the lower court rulings — called the decision a "dreadful mistake."

"The county leaders will now continue to basically assure the appointment to the (state) Supreme Court of their candidates," Koch said.

The state legislature adopted the current system 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because they didn't want them to be corrupted by raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.

"It's a big issue," said Timothy C. Gokey, president of retail tax services at H&R Block in Kansas City, Mo. "A lot of people, especially early filers, don't know about it — or don't know how it will affect them."

It's the second year in a row that tax legislation got put off until so late in the year that IRS forms couldn't be prepared on time. The result, according to Nina E. Olson, national taxpayer advocate, is that many taxpayers miss out on money they're due.

Olson said in a report to Congress last week that late-year changes in the tax code are "the most serious problem facing taxpayers."

She estimated that in 2006, more than a million taxpayers may not have claimed deductions they were entitled to "simply because they did not know about them." Low-income families, she added, "may experience financial hardship because their refunds are delayed."

This year's problem with tax credits is a fallout from congressional repair of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT is a parallel tax that eliminates many deductions and credits most taxpayers claim, thus increasing the tax liability of wealthy families who might otherwise pay less.

The AMT "patch" approved by Congress raised the AMT exemption so that millions more middle-income families wouldn't be drawn into AMT. While many forms were quickly updated to conform to the AMT changes, the forms for some credits got hung up.

The IRS said it won't be able to process returns involving any of the five credits until Feb. 11 and that as many as 13.5 million taxpayers face the possibility of delayed refunds.

The five forms affected by the delay are:

_ Form 8863, Education Credits (Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits).

_ Form 5695, Residential Energy Credits.

_ Form 1040A's Schedule 2, Child and Dependent Care Expenses for Form 1040A Filers.

_ Form 8396, Mortgage Interest Credit.

_ Form 8859, District of Columbia First-Time Homebuyer Credit.

Taxpayers can, of course, wait until Feb. 11 to file. But experts offer some alternatives for those who want to file claims earlier.

H&R Block's Gokey estimated that about 4 million of the 13.5 million affected taxpayers file early, and that about half claim a credit for child and dependent care expenses.

The "workaround" for this group, which normally would file the simplified 1040A form, is to file the more complex 1040 tax form along with Form 2441, Child and Dependent Care Expenses.

Mark Steber, vice president for tax resources at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., said taxpayers also may be able to file at any time without claiming the credits, and then file an amended form later including the credits.

"The hassle is that amended forms have to be paper-filed, and that can slow the refund even more," Steber said. Taxpayers who file their returns electronically and request an electronic deposit of refunds can get their money within 10 days; taxpayers using paper often wait six to eight weeks for their refund, Steber said.

Still, he suggested that taxpayers consult their tax preparers.

"If you're concerned, go in and ask early what your options are," he said. "I worry it could be like last year. How many said, 'The heck with it!' and didn't get the money they deserved?"

Mark Luscombe, principal tax analyst at CCH Inc. of Riverwoods, Ill., said that it's not unusual that tax forms contain new items or special items that get overlooked. The company is a division of Wolters Kluwer, which provides tax information and services to tax professionals.

Last year, for example, federal tax forms included a telephone excise tax refund, "and a lot of people missed it," said Luscombe.

But, he added: "It's been quite a while since we had legislation so late in the year that tax forms had to be amended."

Luscombe suggested that before taxpayers take extraordinary measures to claim credits early, "they should check on the cost" of amending their filings.

Luscombe also warned that similar problems could occur again next year if Congress delays acting.

"Remember, this was a one-year AMT patch, so they'll have to go at it again next year," he said.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Virgin Mobile's business, operations and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased the common stock of Virgin Mobile pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about October 11, 2007 through November 15, 2007, you have certain rights, and have until January 22, 2008, to move for Lead Plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)638-4847, Toll-Free at (888)638-4847, by email to howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

A jury in 2006 had ruled that Janet Orlando had suffered sexual harassment and sexual battery when she was paddled at home security company Alarm One Inc. The jury punished the company with a $1 million punitive damage award.

But on Monday, a three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeal overturned that verdict, ruling that the jury had been given improper instructions. In particular, the jury wasn't instructed that one vital element of proving that sexual harassment occurred is showing the action was directed at a woman because of her gender.

Lawyers for Alarm One, an Anaheim-based, 300-employee company, said that the spankings were not discriminatory because they were given to both male and female workers and that Orlando and others willingly took part.

Orlando's attorney, Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, vowed to take the case to trial again.

"We may get more this time," Wagner said.

But K. Poncho Baker, the attorney who defended the company at trial in 2006, said that because the company has since gone into bankruptcy and its insurance was exhausted battling Orlando's claim and settling with three other co-workers, there may be little left to recover.

"Good luck retrying this one," Baker said.

Orlando quit the company in 2004, less than a year after she was hired at the Fresno office, saying she was humiliated during the company's team-building practices.

Employees were paddled with rival companies' yard signs as part of a contest that pitted sales teams against one another. The winners poked fun at the losers, throwing pies at them, feeding them baby food, making them wear diapers and swatting their buttocks.

The company has since abandoned the practice.

Former Mitsubishi Motors Corp. President Katsuhiko Kawasoe, who had pleaded innocent, was sentenced to three years in prison suspended for five years, a Yokohama District Court official said on customary condition of anonymity. The suspended sentence means he won't have to serve time.

Kawasoe and three other company officials were suspected of failing to report defects although they knew the problems could cause serious accidents.

They were charged in 2004 with professional negligence resulting in death in a 2002 accident in southwestern Japan in which a driver died in a crash after the brakes failed on his Mitsubishi vehicle. A defective clutch system that was later recalled is suspected of causing the brake failure.

The three other officials were also found guilty but were given suspended sentences, the court official said.

Kawasoe, who became president in 1997, quit in disgrace in 2000 after acknowledging that the automaker had hidden defects for decades, many secretly repaired without recalls, despite reports of dozens of accidents.

The massive cover-up scandal stunned Japan when it surfaced in 2000. The sale of Mitsubishi Motors vehicles plunged, sending the Tokyo-based maker into losses for years.

For decades, Mitsubishi kept a two-tier record of driver complaints, tucking away defect reports in a locker that employees called "H," standing for the Japanese word for "secret."

Responsibilities were not defined and driver safety concerns were forgotten, according to a company report ordered in response to the scandal. When the concealed defects grew massive over the years, everyone was afraid to speak up, it said.

Mitsubishi apologized Wednesday to the family of the driver who died, and the company promised to do better.

"The entire company will continue to do its utmost to uphold corporate governance," it said in a statement.

The scandal has produced two other criminal trials.

In December last year, Yokohama District Court Two found two former Mitsubishi quality-control workers guilty of professional negligence in the death of a pedestrian crushed by a wheel falling off a truck.

That trial revolved around the January 2002 death of then 29-year-old Shiho Okamoto, a housewife, who was walking on a sidewalk with her two children when she was crushed to death by a wheel that rolled off a Mitsubishi truck. Her two boys were injured.

In another lawsuit, three former Mitsubishi officials, charged in Okamoto's accident, were acquitted in December 2006 of falsifying defect reports and failing to take proper recall measures. Among them was Takashi Usami, former chairman of Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Corp., the automaker's former truck unit.