Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Reuben Sturman v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1993-355, Docket Nos. 22846-90, 7846-91., Filed August 16, 1993

Reuben Sturman v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1993-355, Docket Nos. 22846-90, 7846-91., Filed August 16, 1993

25.06.2008  

Reuben Sturman v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1993-355

Docket Nos. 22846-90, 7846-91.

Filed August 16, 1993.

Matthew J. Fritz, Donza M. Poole, and Nancy Ortmeyer Kuhn, for the respondent.

Memorandum Opinion

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income taxes as follows:

__________

1 50 percent of the interest on $589,836

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

This matter is now before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment filed June 3, 1993. Petitioner has failed to comply with the Court's Order for response to that motion and with other Court Orders, notwithstanding various extensions granted due to petitioner's incarceration.

Numerous and detailed facts have been admitted pursuant to Rule 37(c) by reason of petitioner's failure to file a reply to the allegations in respondent's Amended Answers. The admitted facts may be the basis for upholding respondent's determinations, including respondent's determinations of additions to tax for fraud under section 6653(b). Doncaster v. Commissioner [Dec. 38,135], 77 T.C. 334 (1981). Those facts are summarized in this opinion.

During each of the years in issue, petitioner was engaged in the production, display, and sale of sexually explicit adult-oriented materials in the United States and foreign countries. He controlled at least 147 "adult bookstores" throughout the United States. He also controlled foreign corporations and related bank accounts in several countries, primarily in Switzerland, that have corporate and bank secrecy laws. Petitioner concealed his ownership of the corporations and the bank accounts by use of aliases and nominees. Petitioner had signatory authority over, and exercised dominion and control over, the deposits in the bank accounts held in the names of those aliases and nominees. Petitioner failed to report the income diverted through these accounts on his Federal income tax returns or to pay Federal income taxes on the income thus received.

On February 15, 1990, petitioner was convicted of violation of section 7201 for 1978 through 1982. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Petitioner is, therefore, collaterally estopped to deny that he underpaid his taxes due to fraud for those years. See Klein v. Commissioner [89-2 USTC ╤ 9429], 880 F.2d 260 (10th Cir. 1989), affg. [Dec. 41,377(M)] T.C. Memo. 1984-392; Arctic Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner [Dec. 27,013], 43 T.C. 68, 74-75 (1964).

Respondent cannot rely on collateral estoppel for 1975, 1976, and 1977. The facts admitted, however, establish a pattern of fraudulent conduct, including failure to report income and elaborate efforts to conceal that income and to prevent the collection of taxes on that income. The admitted facts thus constitute clear and convincing evidence of fraud for all of the years in issue, and respondent's burden of proof has been satisfied.

Because the matters admitted are sufficient to satisfy respondent's burden of proving fraud and petitioner has failed to show that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted. Rule 121(b).

Appropriate orders will be issued and decisions will be entered for respondent.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

ТОП-5 трудностей представления электронных документов в суд

Электронные документы «пробиваются» в российские суды уже на протяжении семи лет. В 2010 году была внесена первая поправка в статью 41 Арбитражного процессуального кодекса РФ, позволившая участникам судебного процесса представлять в Арбитражный суд документы в электронном виде. С этого момента вносилось множество изменений и дополнений в различные правовые акты, были изданы новые нормативные документы (подробнее об этом читайте в материалах авторов Synerdocs в конце этой статьи)

Хитров Дмитрий
Хитров Дмитрий

Компания «Электронный арбитраж»

Почему в суд выгодно представлять именно электронные документы?

Право и возможность подачи электронных документов в суд предоставлено в России давно. Однако по старинке стороны ходят на заседания с большими папками бумажных документов вместо планшетов или ноутбуков. Почему?

Суфиянова Татьяна
Суфиянова Татьяна

Российский налоговый портал

Ошибки риэлтора могут помешать получению имущественного вычета

При совершении сделок при покупке или продаже жилья советую быть внимательным при подписании договора купли-продажи. В противном случае покупатель не сможет вернуть НДФЛ в полном размере.

25