Nasser and Shahpar Golshani - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for a                
          deficiency in their 1999 Federal income tax of $4,009, an                   
          addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $1,002.25, and a                
          penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $801.80.  The issues for             
          decision are:  (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to deduct a             
          net operating loss carryover attributable to losses from the                
          expropriation of four parcels of property by the Iranian                    
          Government; (2) whether petitioners are liable for the                      
          delinquency addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1); and (3)               
          whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty             
          under section 6662(a).                                                      
                                     Background                                       
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are                  
          incorporated herein by this reference.  At the time the petition            
          was filed, petitioners resided in Los Angeles, California.                  
               Petitioners were citizens and residents of Iran prior to               
          1988.  Petitioner, Nasser Golshani (hereinafter petitioner),                
          worked as a civilian engineer in Iran prior to 1970.  In the                
          early 1970s petitioner formed Fabris Construction Co. (Fabris)              
          with two other individuals.1  Fabris did business with the                  
          Government of Iran.  From approximately 1970 through 1975,                  


               1  While the record is not entirely clear, the parties                 
          appear to assume that Fabris was a joint venture in which                   
          petitioner had a one-third interest.                                        




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011