Attorney-Client Privilege

            The court's holding in Goldberger was not absolute, it acknowledged the possibility of special circumstances under which the disclosure of client- identifying information may be privileged. This narrow exception, however, does not apply to the plaintiff here. Special circumstances under which client- identity and fee information would be privileged exist when there is a direct link between the disclosure and the revelation of a confidential communication, or when the disclosure of client-identifying information would directly incriminate the client by providing the last link in an existing chain of evidence against the client. U.S. v. Goldberger & Dubin, P.C., 935 F.2d 501, 505(2d Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Sindel, 53 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Leventhal, 961 F.2d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1992); Cf. U.S. v. Dichne, 612 F.2d 632, 640-641 (2d Cir. 1979). No such circumstances exist here. Plaintiff has not made any showing that including the client-identifying information omitted from the 8300 Form filed in July 1993 would reveal a confidential communication or constitute the last link in a chain of incriminating evidence against its client. Thus, the information necessary to file a complete 8300 Form was not protected from disclosure under Goldberger, and the attorney-client privilege does not provide grounds upon which plaintiff can base its claim of reasonable cause warranting a waiver of the penalty assessed against it by the IRS.