- 7 -
deficiencies, and thus the amounts of the fraud additions to tax.
Respondent concedes that if the Court grants petitioners’ amended
reply motion, then summary judgment is not proper, but contends
that respondent will be entitled to partial summary judgment that
Anthony is collaterally estopped to deny that (1) he is liable
for fraud additions to tax and (2) there are underpayments of tax
on his joint tax returns for 1988, 1989, and 1990.
Our findings are based entirely on those matters that are
admitted in the pleadings or that are admitted or deemed admitted
in the motion papers in the instant case.
Background--Facts
Anthony and Gloria are husband and wife; they were residents
of Mehoopany, Pennsylvania, when the petition was filed in the
instant case. During the years in issue, petitioners were
shareholders7 and employees of Forkston. Forkston was engaged in
the business of selling fireworks to the public.
Anthony was indicted and tried for criminal tax fraud under
section 7201, and for aiding or assisting the filing of false tax
returns under section 7206(2). The criminal tax fraud charges
were as to petitioners’ 1988, 1989, and 1990 joint tax returns.
The false tax return charges were as to Forkston’s 1988, 1989,
7 The parties’ pleadings do not indicate the percentages
of Forkston that Anthony and Gloria each owned.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011