Key Witness in Case Against Tom Goldstein Eviscerated on Cross

A key witness in the government’s tax evasion and false statements case against high-profile US Supreme Court advocate Tom Goldstein appears to have made statements to investigators that are contradicted by documentary evidence.

His testimony under cross-examination Wednesday by Goldstein lawyer Jonathan Kravis also indicated that the government may have violated its evidence disclosure obligations for a second time in the case.

The contradictions between a 2017 email and statements Walter Deyhle made to the grand jury and investigators, along with errors he made handling Goldstein’s tax returns, could badly damage his credibility before the jury.

The alleged disclosure violation could also lead to sanctions against the government, depending on what the court rules.

Contradictions

Deyhle, an accountant and tax preparer formerly with GRF CPAs & Advisors, said testimony he gave to the grand jury and statements he made to the government were to the best of his recollection at the time. He denied lying.

“The truth is that when the IRS came to you in October 2020, you knew that you had to find a way to make this Mr. Goldstein’s fault—that’s what happened here, right?” Kravis asked.

“That’s totally false,” Deyhle replied.

Deyhle said at the time that Goldstein netted $1.6 million gambling, and that he only knew that because Goldstein told him verbally. Deyhle also said he asked for additional documentation about the gambling from Goldstein but never received it.

But Goldstein sent Deyhle an email Oct. 12, 2017, listing net gambling wins of $2.7 million, not $1.6 million.

It listed gross winnings of $27.2 million and losses and distributions of $24.4 million. A subsequent email from Goldstein to Deyhle specified that gambling losses represented $13.5 million, meaning the remaining $10.9 million constituted payments to investors who had backed his poker games.

Deyhle was interviewed by IRS agents in connection with the criminal investigation for the first time Oct. 14, 2020—the same day they visited Goldstein’s office and advised him he was under investigation.

Deyhle told the agents at that meeting that Goldstein hadn’t disclosed any foreign bank accounts to him. Deyhle figured out later the same day that Goldstein’s firm manager had told him about accounts in Montenegro, but it was three years before he told the government that he’d misinformed agents and that it was actually his fault the foreign accounts went unreported, according to his testimony and related email evidence.

The defense claims the government violated disclosure obligations by failing to tell it anything about a Jan. 28, 2026, meeting when—for the first time—the government showed Deyhle the 2017 email that contradicted his prior to testimony. The prosecution said there weren’t any notes to disclose.

Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby directed the government to brief the issue, saying she wanted to “get the facts straight.”

Errors, Questionable Advice

Kravis’s questioning also challenged Deyhle’s claim that GRF did “a really good job” for Goldstein and his firm.

Among other things, Deyhle botched the entry of gambling-related line items on Goldstein’s tax return—errors he acknowledged but said didn’t affect the bottom line.

Kravis also drew out Deyhle’s failure to file separate returns for Goldstein and his spouse, despite a specific and timely request to do so, on top of the failure to disclose the Montenegrin bank accounts.

He also introduced email evidence suggesting Deyhle provided Goldstein with some problematic advice.

In an email between Goldstein’s firm manager and a GRF employee about the IRS levying Goldstein’s accounts, the GRF employee relayed advice he said came from Deyhle suggesting that Goldstein open new bank accounts that weren’t listed in the levy paperwork submitted to the IRS.

“We don’t want the IRS taking any monies from those accounts,” the email said.

Deyhle denied that was bad advice or that it might amount to obstruction of IRS collection activity. According to Deyhle, he suggested it as a measure to prevent the IRS from accidentally levying more than it should from a business account, which he said could cause “catastrophic” problems for businesses.

Goldstein didn’t take the advice, in any event.

The second witness called Wednesday was Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director and corporate counsel at Parabellum Capital, a litigation funder that helped Goldstein pay of his taxes and purchase a home in 2021.

He detailed the nature of Parabellum’s arrangement with Goldstein and how it related to Goldstein’s efforts to secure a mortgage.

The third witness called was IRS special agent John McDonald. His testimony has thus far focused on his October 2020 interview with Goldstein. He will resume the stand Thursday.

The parties are filing briefing on the disclosure dispute this evening.

The defense said it thinks the violation was willful. The government denied there are any notes on its recent meeting with Deyhle or anything it needed to disclose in connection with the inconsistent email.

Goldstein is represented by Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, trial held 2/4/26.