Tobey Maguire Takes Stand at Tom Goldstein’s Criminal Tax Trial

Spider-Man star Tobey Maguire was one of three witnesses to take the stand Wednesday at lawyer Tom Goldstein’s trial on tax and false statements charges.

Maguire’s highly anticipated testimony was brief. The jurors didn’t seem starstruck—or if they were, they wore good poker faces.

Maguire explained that he knew Goldstein from poker circles and hired him in 2020 to help collect a $7.8 million gambling debt from Texas billionaire Andy Beal.

Maguire said he wired Goldstein’s $500,000 fee for recovering the money to real estate mogul Bob Safai at Goldstein’s direction. Maguire said he wasn’t sure why, but the jury heard from Safai earlier that Goldstein owed him a substantial gambling debt.

When crossed, Maguire said a request like that isn’t uncommon in the poker world, and that it isn’t uncommon for such transactions not to be formally documented. Maguire also said that Goldstein didn’t ask him—or his accountants, to his knowledge—to refrain from sending any 1099s or other tax documents.

Goldstein is charged with one count of tax evasion, eight counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns, four counts of willful failure to pay taxes and three counts of making a false statement on a loan application. Prosecutors allege he willfully mischaracterized gambling-related expenses as business expenses, failed to pay his taxes on time, and concealed income from the IRS, among other things.

The defense has maintained that Goldstein relied on his outside accountants and firm managers to get his taxes right, and that there’s no evidence that he ever told anyone to do anything to help him dodge his taxes.

Another Pro

The other two witnesses called Wednesday were professional poker player Vivek Rajkumar and IRS revenue agent Yvette Parrish.

Rajkumar—the third professional card player called by the government thus far—testified to what he could remember of a handful of transactions from years ago, including ones relating to a $200,000 short-term loan he made to Goldstein in March 2020.

The government’s aim seemed to be that gambling money and loans were wired to and from Goldstein & Russell PC’s bank account, as opposed to Goldstein’s personal account. But Rajkumar’s testimony may have done more harm than good to its case.

Rajkumar testified on cross-examination that the $200,000 loan was never papered.

That matters because the government has suggested, both in the indictment and through its questioning, that the nearly $1 million in cash that Goldstein brought into the US in October 2018 couldn’t possibly be a loan—as opposed to gambling winnings— because there wasn’t any documentation memorializing the terms.

Rajkumar said he felt comfortable lending $200,000 to Goldstein without any note because Goldstein had acted honorably in their dealings in the past.

Rajkumar also testified that transfers made on behalf of others are common among high-stakes gamblers, and that the various reasons that bank records alone might not provide a complete picture of someone’s gambling-related activities.

Installment Plan

Parrish, who took the stand last to accommodate Maguire and Rajkumar’s travel schedules, resumed testimony that she started Jan. 22.

Her testimony revolved around an installment plan that she arranged for Goldstein for past-due taxes for 2016 and 2017.

She said that Goldstein never mentioned any gambling, but on cross acknowledged that he disclosed $13.7 million in “other income” from gambling on his 2016 tax return.

Goldstein’s lawyer, Stephany Reaves asked whether Goldstein therefore had every reason to believe she already knew about the gambling.

“I can’t say what he believed,” Parrish said.

Calling the Journalists

Meanwhile, the government subpoenaed Jeffrey Toobin and Rudy Lee to testify about their newsgathering for a story that ran in New York Times Magazine at the end of December.

Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby earlier denied the government’s motion to admit portions of the story, which it says is are directly relevant to the charges.

Griggsby has yet to rule on their motion to quash the subpeonas—which the defense has supported in a statement of interest.

They say their testimony “would have minimal value to the government’s case—indeed, it is exculpatory as to several counts—and it comes at the cost of a serious intrusion into the newsgathering process that will chill future journalism.”

Goldstein is represented by Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is United States v. Goldstein, D. Md., No. 8:25-cr-00006, trial held 1/28/26.