- 33 -
to Timmerman Leasing.
With respect to the foregoing unreported income items at
issue for 1996, petitioner testified in part as follows:
The embezzlement issue on the 1099 form[12] has already
been ruled on, in December 2001, by the Honorable
Hennepin County District Court Judge Myron Greenberg,
in which his order specifically writes that the
$122,391 -- and I believe it was 87 cents -- which is
missing from this particular entry, was null and void,
and should be reclassified as $0.00.
In addition, on brief petitioner
denies all claimes made in the 91 F motion and has
consistantly denied these bogas alegations. Petitioner
fought in state district court the exact same claims
and after nearly (4) four years of trial and pretrial
Judge Myron Greenburg ruled all of these claims to be
untrue. This Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the
same claims already decided. * * * [Reproduced liter-
ally.]
Respondent counters that
Petitioner did not articulate any credible explanation
at trial why the income attributed to him from his
misappropriations from Weavewood would not be income to
him. He testified that a Hennepin County District
Judge had ruled that the Form 1099 issued by Weavewood
was null and void and should be reclassified as zero
* * * but he presented no documentary evidence corrobo-
rating his claim about either the ruling or the basis
for the ruling. Even if such an order had been en-
tered, however, it has no legal effect on this case,
since petitioner did not claim, and respondent would
have contested such a claim if it had been made, that
respondent was a party to the state court proceeding.
Furthermore, this proceeding [the instant case] would
have been the appropriate forum in which to raise the
issue whether the Form 1099 was accurate or not, not in
a state court action. Respondent notes that, according
to petitioner’s testimony, the state court ruling would
12See supra note 11.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011