- 2 -
Summary Judgment.1 As explained in greater detail below, we
shall deny petitioner's motion.
Background2
On September 13, 1990, petitioner was charged in a 17-count
superseding bill of indictment with various drug trafficking
charges, filing false tax returns, engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise, and criminal forfeiture, relating to his
involvement in an illegal scheme to distribute marijuana from
1984 to 1988. Petitioner pleaded guilty in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina to a number of
the charges and was convicted with respect to the remaining
charges in July 1992 following a jury trial.
1 Although the petition in this case is a joint petition by
Charles McHan and his wife, Martha McHan, the latter did not join
in the filing of the motion that is the subject of this opinion.
Consequently, references to petitioner in the singular are to
Charles McHan. Because petitioner's motion does not address all
of the issues to be decided in this case, petitioner's motion is
more appropriately viewed as a motion for partial summary
judgment.
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 The following is a summary drawn from the entire record
of the relevant facts that do not appear to be in dispute. These
facts are stated solely for purposes of deciding the pending
motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,
98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994).
Additional background discussion can be found in McHan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-12 (denying petitioner's motion for
summary judgment that the notice of deficiency is invalid). See
also United States v. McHan, 101 F.3d 1027 (4th Cir. 1996).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011