- 7 -
the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed the conviction but vacated
petitioner’s sentence and remanded the case to the District Court
for resentencing. See United States v. Venske, 296 F.3d 1284
(11th Cir. 2002).4 The Court of Appeals left intact the
forfeiture aspects of the case. United States v. McCorkle, 321
F.3d at 1294 n.1.
Pursuant to the forfeiture order, on or about February 1,
1999, the Marshals Service sought to recover from respondent the
$2 million remittance. On or about February 18, 1999, respondent
complied with the forfeiture order and returned $2 million to the
Marshals Service by making a manual refund and issuing a check
made payable to the Marshals Service (the refund).
Respondent’s Examination
In 1999, after petitioner’s conviction for the offenses
described above, respondent commenced an examination of
petitioner’s Federal income tax liability for 1996. That
examination resulted in the issuance of a notice of deficiency
for 1996, determining a deficiency in tax of $905,315 and various
additions to tax and penalties. Petitioner did not petition the
Tax Court with respect to the notice of deficiency. On October
4 After remand, the District Court conducted another
sentencing hearing on Sept. 11, 2003, and made certain findings.
The District Court then adopted and imposed its original sentence
against petitioner. Petitioner has appealed his resentencing to
the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which appeal is
pending.
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