K & M La Botica Pharmacy, Incorporated, Et Al. - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
                           SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION                            
               SWIFT, Judge:  This matter is before us on the parties’                
          dispute as to entry of decisions pursuant to Rule 155.                      
               Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to              
          the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and             
          all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and              
          Procedure.                                                                  
               In our prior opinion, we held that for 1995 and 1996                   
          petitioner K & M La Botica, Inc. (K & M), and for 1995, 1996, and           
          1997 petitioner Khaled Ahmed (Ahmed) were liable under section              
          6663(a) for civil fraud, and we held that for 1998 Ahmed was                
          liable under section 6651(f) for civil fraud.                               
               At trial, the parties, among other things, stipulated that             
          for 1997 and 1998 several corporations associated with Ahmed were           
          to be treated as Ahmed’s nominees and that the nominee                      
          corporations’ income and expenses were to be attributed to Ahmed            
          individually.2  The parties also stipulated the amounts of income           

               2  In the parties’ stipulation, the parties also stipulated            
          that the mere fact that Ahmed had conceded the nominee status of            
          the various corporations would have no bearing on the issue of              
          fraud.  The stipulation, however, expressly preserved                       
          respondent’s right to argue, and the Court to find, that the                
          corporations in fact constituted Ahmed’s nominees and that such a           
          finding could be used to support a finding of fraud.  In our                
          prior opinion, and independently of the parties’ stipulation, we            
          made specific findings of fact that the corporations were Ahmed’s           
          nominees, and we went further.  We found as follows:                        

                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011