Ferydoun Ahadpour, a.k.a, F. Ahadpour, And Doris Ahadpour - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
               B. Exhibits 1-P, 13-P, 14-P, and 16-P                                  
               Exhibit 1-P is the declaration with the Ministry of Justice            
          of the Islamic Republic of Iran to discharge Ammareh’s powers of            
          attorney.10  Respondent objected on the basis of hearsay.                   
               Exhibit 16-P is the letter petitioner received from the                
          Revolutionary Moslem Group in Iran to which respondent objected             
          on the basis of authenticity, hearsay, and completeness.                    
               Exhibits 13-P and 14-P are the documents sent to petitioner            
          by his Iranian attorney in 1980 to which respondent objected on             
          the basis of completeness, hearsay, and authenticity.                       
               We overrule respondent’s objections and admit these                    
          documents into evidence.                                                    
          Petitioners’ Contentions                                                    
               Petitioners contend that they should be allowed a bad debt             
          deduction of $8 million that arose from the sale of GMS in 1976.            
          Apparently, petitioners argue that GMS was a corporate entity               
          that was simply an empty shell for estate planning purposes to              
          which petitioner would eventually transfer his assets and                   
          ultimately distribute them upon his death.                                  
               Petitioners also contend that the Statement of Account                 
          memorialized the 1976 agreement and that they made efforts to               



               10  Respondent also charged that Ammareh’s signature on this           
          document appeared to be a forgery.  The parties agreed to have              
          the document examined by an expert, though no followup report was           
          ever submitted.  Accordingly, we reject respondent’s charges.               





Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011