Andrew G. and Cecilia M. Vajna - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          specifically, as relevant to the instant proceeding, respondent             
          adjusted petitioners’ income to include 50 percent of alleged               
          subpart F income received by Carolco Investments B.V. (CIBV), a             
          Netherlands entity, on the grounds that CIBV was a controlled               
          foreign corporation in which petitioners owned 50 percent of the            
          stock.  The remaining 50 percent was allocated to Mario F.                  
          Kassar, petitioner in a related case at docket No. 5195-96.  This           
          position was maintained in respondent’s original answer.                    
               Respondent now seeks in paragraph 7 of the amended answer to           
          attribute to petitioners 100 percent of CIBV’s purported subpart            
          F income for 1989, with a corresponding increase in the                     
          deficiency and accuracy-related penalty due for that year.                  
          Respondent’s alleged basis for doing so is the claim that on                
          December 30, 1989, the 50 percent of CIBV shares formerly owned             
          by Mr. Kassar was transferred to Trust-en Administratiekantoor              
          Nestor B.V. (Nestor), another Netherlands corporation, which                
          respondent avers was owned or controlled by petitioners.                    
               At the hearing held on November 15, 2000, counsel for                  
          petitioners represented that his clients objected to respondent’s           
          proposed amended answer only with respect to the allegations set            
          forth in paragraph 7 thereof.  Hence, there is no barrier to our            
          granting respondent’s motion in so far as it relates to items               
          other than those detailed in paragraph 7.  As regards paragraph             
          7, we conclude, for the reasons explained below, that                       
          respondent’s motion should be granted on this point as well.                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011