to Miranda warnings. Moreover, the government agreed not to submit to the jury any statements that Ahmad Bey made at the interview and Ahmad Bey does not allege that the government broke their agreement. We can quickly dispose of Ahmad Bey’s remaining arguments. She argues that the district court should not have rejected her claim of privilege and allowed the government to call as witnesses the attorneys she hired to file her bankruptcy petitions. But information provided to an attorney in anticipation of a bankruptcy filing is not intended to be held in confidence and therefore is not privileged. United States v. White, 970 F.2d 328, 334 (7th Cir.1992); United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496, 500 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Ahmad Bey also argues that the government
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 holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that tax returns are privileged under the statutes that prohibited the tax board and employees from disclosing any information and this privilege should not be nullified by allowing third parties to obtain the information by demanding copies of the returns holding that information furnished to preparer of tax return is not privileged holding that intentional failure to file an information return is not a willful filing