- 2 - for failure to state a claim, but only in part. After the case was transferred to a Federal District Court in New York, all of the defendants, except G, settled. The court later granted G’s motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the judgments by both District Courts. P claimed a $217,649,340 theft loss deduction on its 1994 Federal income tax return. Held: P is collaterally estopped from claiming that it sustained a theft loss by virtue of the additional cash payment of $217,649,340. The disposition of the prior action in G’s favor rested on findings that P redeemed its stock for no more than it was worth and thus sustained no cognizable injury from the disclosure of the confidential information. F. Brook Voght and David B. Blair, for petitioner. Lawrence C. Letkewicz, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent’s determination of a $2,030,589 deficiency in its 1994 Federal income tax. Petitioner’s sole assignment of error concerns respondent’s disallowance of a $217,649,340 theft loss deduction claimed for that year. Petitioner alleged in its petition that the theft loss related to the fraudulent and illegal activities of Ivan F. Boesky (Boesky), which caused petitioner to redeem its stock (old FMC stock) at an artificially increased price.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