- 3 -- 3 -
Procedural Setting
The case at hand was formerly consolidated with Johnston v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-315, and Ghavami v. Commissioner,
docket No. 3692-99. The case was severed from those cases on
respondent’s motion when respondent’s motion to dismiss was
filed.
The common substantive question in the three cases is
whether $104,786 deposited in petitioner’s bank account during
1993 should be included in the gross income of petitioner, Mr.
Johnston, or Ms. Ghavami. The statutory notices sent to
petitioner, Mr. Johnston, and Ms. Ghavami were “whipsaw” notices
designed to protect respondent’s ability to collect the proper
tax, whether petitioner, Mr. Johnston, or Ms. Ghavami should be
treated as the earner of the $104,786, and whether or not
petitioner should be recognized as a separate taxable entity.
We held a hearing on the cross-motions to dismiss the case
at hand on June 19, 20, and 27, 2000. Mr. Chisum claimed to
represent petitioner at the hearing; he also testified briefly on
petitioner’s behalf. The Court took the motions to dismiss under
advisement at the end of the hearing, pending the resolution of
Johnston v. Commissioner, supra.
In Johnston, we found that $103,420 of the $104,786 paid to
petitioner was paid for services performed solely by Mr.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011