business losses through deductions of significantly above-market-value amounts for purchased websites. Respondent claimed his compensation by taking a percentage of the refunds generated by his preparation of the fraudulent tax returns. We have previously held that a lawyer’s intentional false and fraudulent preparation of tax returns, whether on his, her, or on behalf of others, is conduct “ ‘infested with fraud, deceit, and dishonesty!)]’ ” Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Swerdloff, 279 Md. 296, 298-99, 369 A.2d 75, 76 (1977) (where a lawyer fraudulently subscribed to a joint income tax return by understating his taxable income) (quoting Maryland St. Bar Ass’n v. Agnew, 271 Md. 543, 551, 318 A.2d 811, 815 (1974)); Att’y Griev. Comm’n v. Deutsch, 294 Md. 353, 366, 450 A.2d 1265, 1271 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Because criminal attorney misconduct “may
holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge holding that a lawyer knowingly falsifying a tax return by understating income is dishonest holding that the phrase return of income used in 26 usc  6012 is synonymous with the phrase return of tax used in 26 usc  6151 holding defendant liable for intended loss created by filing false tax return for someone else even though intended victim demonstrated to irs that tax return was bogus