-14-
declaration that it was made under the penalties of
perjury, and which you did [not] believe to be true and
correct as to every material matter, in that said
return reported adjusted gross income of $113,847,
whereas as you knew, that adjusted gross income figure
failed to reflect an additional $295,940.90 in
reportable income.
In addition, on or about September 28, 1991, your
husband willfully made and subscribed a U.S.
Corporation Income Tax Return, Form 1120, on behalf of
David Dung Le, M.D., Inc., for calendar year 1990 which
was verified by a written declaration that it was made
under the penalties of perjury, and which your husband
did not believe to be true and correct as to every
material matter, in that said return reported gross
receipts of $248,359, whereas as you and your husband
well knew, that figure failed to include an additional
$295,940.90 in gross receipts. By having failed to
deposit business checks into the David Dung Le, Md.,
Inc. business bank account and having failed to advise
your tax preparer that the business checks had been so
diverted, you knowingly aided, abetted and caused the
above described subscribing to a false corporate
return.
Ms. Le acknowledged as to her plea agreement that she had
“carefully reviewed every part of it with my attorney” before
signing it. In connection with her plea, Ms. Le served jail
time.
G. Previous Case Involving DDL
DDL previously petitioned this Court to redetermine
deficiencies in and other amounts related to its 1990 and 1991
Federal income taxes. We dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction. See David Dung Le, M.D., Inc. v. Commissioner,
114 T.C. 268 (2000). We held that DDL was a California
corporation that lacked the capacity to engage in litigation
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011