- 9 -
two of which entailed sworn statements. Mr. Darwish’s civil
complaint, his affidavit in the previous jeopardy proceeding, and
his testimony at the jeopardy trial have all served to alert
petitioners of his claims regarding what took place at Mr.
Ahmed’s businesses.
Even more importantly, petitioners have in fact already been
afforded a chance to cross-examine Mr. Darwish under oath on
matters such as Mr. Ahmed’s cash dealings and unauthorized use of
signatures. These issues, highly pertinent to the jeopardy
assessment, will be equally relevant in the deficiency context.
Lastly, we observe that when the primary substantive
questions to be decided in the deficiency cases involve whether
Mr. Ahmed had unreported income and engaged in fraudulent
behavior, the essential information determinative of his tax
liability, as well as of Mr. Darwish’s veracity, is within Mr.
Ahmed’s own knowledge and control.
For the above reasons, petitioners’ motions to compel taking
of Mr. Darwish’s testimony will be denied.
To reflect the foregoing,
Appropriate orders will be
issued denying petitioners’ Motions
to Compel Taking of Deposition of
Hussein Darwish.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011