- 5 -
motion.2 The foundation has filed a notice of appeal, appealing
the judgment in the District Court case.
As pertinent here, the foundation contended in the founda-
tion's motion (1) that the United States was precluded from
asserting that petitioners owned the Modoc property based on
the principles of issue preclusion and/or judicial estoppel and
(2) that the foundation cannot simultaneously own the Modoc
property on behalf of petitioners and EOCC. The United States
contended in defendant's motion, inter alia, (1) that the United
States is entitled to levy on the Modoc property to satisfy
EOCC's tax liability because the foundation's "interest in the
property derives from a fraudulent conveyance" and (2) that the
United States is entitled to levy on the Modoc property to
satisfy petitioners' tax liability because the foundation quali-
fies as petitioners' nominee and also "is so thoroughly dominated
by * * * [petitioners] as to render it a sham entity."
The District Court found in its order that on September 23,
1994, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to EOCC, which set
forth respondent's determinations of deficiencies in, and penal-
ties on, EOCC's tax for 1988, 1989, and 1990. The District Court
further found in its order that on December 23, 1994, EOCC filed
2 A U.S. magistrate judge of the District Court entered the
District Court order and judgment in the District Court case in
accordance with the consent of the parties in that case pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. sec. 636(c) (1994).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011