James E. Wells - Page 7

                                                - 7 -                                                   
            the time he signed petitioner’s plea agreement he instructed his                            
            attorney Mr. Marcus to enter into an agreement with the U.S.                                
            Attorney to have petitioner’s claimed credit applied against the                            
            amounts due for the years at issue.  On brief, petitioner con-                              
            tends for the first time that he would not have entered into                                
            petitioner’s plea agreement without having had an agreement with                            
            the U.S. Attorney to apply petitioner’s claimed credit against                              
            the amounts due for the years at issue.                                                     
                  We are unwilling to rely on petitioner’s testimony about an                           
            agreement with the U.S. Attorney to apply petitioner’s claimed                              
            credit against the amounts due for the years at issue.  Peti-                               
            tioner’s testimony is contradicted by petitioner’s plea agreement                           
            and the U.S. District Court judgment in petitioner’s criminal                               
            proceeding.  On the record before us, we find that petitioner is                            
            not entitled to petitioner’s claimed credit.                                                
                  We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of                            
            the parties that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be                           
            without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.3                                                    

                  3Respondent argues that, even if the Court were to find that                          
            there was an agreement with the U.S. Attorney to have                                       
            petitioner’s claimed credit applied against the amounts due for                             
            the years at issue, no such credit should be permitted.  That is                            
            because, according to respondent, a line of cases including Tank                            
            Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner, 356 U.S. 30 (1958), King v.                            
            United States, 152 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1998), Wood v. United                                
            States, 863 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1989), and United States v.                                  
            Algemene Kunstzijde Unie, N.V., 226 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1955), has                           
            held that allowing that type of credit would be against public                              
                                                                          (continued...)                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011