- 15 -
was not a party to that contract. Petitioner signed the contract
as president of AmRuss.
Layman testified that Murphy Body Co. and petitioner, on
behalf of FabuGlass, tried to do business in Russia in 1991-94
with an entity named Association Vnedrenie. We believe that
Layman’s testimony that FabuGlass was involved in Russia was
mistaken because the documentary evidence refers to AmRuss, not
FabuGlass. No contract between Murphy Body Co. and Association
Vnedrenie is in evidence. The record contains an “Addendum to
Charter and By-Laws of Vnedrenie-Murphy” that lists Murphy Body
Co., AmRuss, and Association Vnedrenie as parties to that
addendum and refers to petitioner as chairman of AmRuss. No
documentary evidence shows that FabuGlass did business in Russia.
Petitioners point out that FabuGlass claimed deductions for
doing business in Russia on its second amended return for 1994.
Petitioners contend that petitioner was merely correcting errors
on the original and first amended returns for 1994 and that the
second amended return is correct. We disagree. Petitioner filed
FabuGlass’ second amended return for 1994 on November 8, 1999,
almost 9 months after respondent issued the notice of deficiency.
This suggests that FabuGlass claimed those deductions simply to
support petitioners’ claim that FabuGlass was an operating
company in 1990-94 because it operated in Russia.
Respondent contends in the alternative that, if we find that
FabuGlass was active in Russia in 1990-94, then the FabuGlass
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