Edward R. Arevalo - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          proceedings could continue in federal district court, where there           
          was a pending receivership involving debtors.”                              
               The receivership was the result of a civil enforcement                 
          action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)              
          against Alpha Telcom in 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the             
          District of Oregon.  The District Court appointed a receiver in             
          September 2001 to take over the operations of Alpha Telcom and to           
          investigate its financial condition.  On February 7, 2002, the              
          District Court held that the pay phone scheme was actually a                
          security investment and that Federal law had been violated by               
          Alpha Telcom because the program had not been registered with the           
          SEC.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed              
          this decision on December 5, 2003.                                          
          Petitioner’s Unreported Income                                              
               During 2001, petitioner received proceeds of $146,912.28               
          from the sale of stocks from his USB PaineWebber brokerage                  
          account.  Petitioner also received dividends of $5,982.05 during            
          2001.  Petitioner did not report the stock sales or dividends on            
          his income tax return for 2001.  Respondent has conceded that the           
          stock sales did not result in taxable gains.                                
          Internal Revenue Service Determinations                                     
               The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed the                      
          depreciation deduction claimed by petitioner because “the                   
          telephone is located in a place that * * * [petitioner did] not             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011