John S. Fagan - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         


          determined of 50 percent of the interest due on $370,360, and               
          under section 6654 in the amount of $19,881.  The deficiency was            
          based on respondent’s determination that petitioner had not                 
          reported $970,000 of income from the distribution of marijuana.             
          Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the                   
          Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all              
          Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and                  
          Procedure.                                                                  
               Respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is limited            
          to the issue of whether petitioner is collaterally estopped from            
          disputing that there is an underpayment of his tax for 1987 and             
          that some part of the underpayment is due to fraud within the               
          meaning of section 6653(b).                                                 
               On September 29, 1993, the U.S. Attorney filed with the U.S.           
          District Court for the District of Nevada in United States v.               
          John Steven Fagan, Criminal No. N-92-61-HDM, a three count                  
          Information: Count One--Conspiracy to import in excess of 1,000             
          kilograms of marijuana/asset forfeiture; Count Two--Unreported              
          exportation of currency in excess of $10,000; and Count Three--             
          Felony tax evasion.  The Information further described Count                
          Three as Section 7201--Income tax evasion.  In Count Three, the             
          Information set forth the accusation that John Steven Fagan                 
          (Fagan) (petitioner in this case) had received taxable income of            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011