John J. Petito - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          interest of $8,327, dividends of $199, a capital loss of $1,500,            
          and an S corporation loss reported on Schedule E of $1,744.                 
               In 1995, respondent instituted a criminal investigation                
          regarding petitioner’s tax liability for 1992.  Petitioner                  
          executed Forms 872, Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax,               
          extending the time for the assessment of taxes for 1992 until               
          December 31, 1999.                                                          
               By letter dated April 9, 1997, petitioner’s then counsel,              
          Lawrence V. Carra (Mr. Carra), wrote a letter to Iris Rothman, an           
          attorney assigned to respondent’s Office of District Counsel in             
          Westbury, New York, referring to petitioner’s tax liabilities for           
          1992 through 1995 and informing her that petitioner “wishes to              
          enter into a plea agreement.”                                               
               On September 10, 1997, Special Agents Philip D. Hill and               
          Randall L. Sprance met with Mr. Carra and a certified public                
          accountant, Timothy Mulcahy (Mr. Mulcahy), with regard to                   
          petitioner’s tax liability for 1992.  During the meeting, Messrs.           
          Carra and Mulcahy provided the special agents with a schedule               
          titled “PETITO CPA STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES” indicating             
          that Petito Corp. had overstated its deductible expenses for                
          1992.  In particular, rather than incurring a net loss of $1,744,           
          the schedule indicated that Petito Corp. earned net income of               
          $44,456 during 1992.  It appears that the parties believed that             
          such income would be included in petitioner’s gross income as a             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011