- 5 -
with respect to the last count under which petitioner was
convicted, that, for purposes of section 7206(1), petitioner
"unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly" made and subscribed his 1975
joint income tax return (Form 1040), which contained and was
verified by a written declaration that it was made under penalty
of perjury, and which he did not believe to be true and correct
as to material matters, to wit, loss and investment tax credit on
account of an investment in the Caldwell film development
partnership, and income received from Cinepix Establishment.
Petitioner claims that the testimony at the criminal trial
(only some of which is available to us) indicates that he was an
investor in Caldwell who sublet an office to Murray Glantz, one
of the coconspirators, who was the lawyer for Caldwell and who
controlled the dummy general partner. Petitioner goes on to
claim that Glantz did virtually everything connected with
Caldwell and Cinepix, that there was no evidence that petitioner
had anything at all to do with the transaction between the
sellers and Cinepix, that petitioner had trouble obtaining
Caldwell partnership documents from Glantz, that petitioner
assisted in the sale of Caldwell interests but was not aware of
the inflated purchase price, that petitioner was interested in
Caldwell for its profit potential and sold it on that basis to
2(...continued)
1993) (earlier decisions in Zola v. Gordon, 701 F. Supp. 67
(S.D.N.Y. 1988), and 685 F. Supp. 354 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011