Charles McHan and Martha McHan - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          profit) of petitioner from marijuana sales not reported on                  
          petitioners’ 1985 and 1986 Federal income tax returns.2                     
               In addition, based on his above calculation and                        
          determination that petitioner had $200,910 in additional                    
          unreported income in 1987 from marijuana sales, respondent                  
          disallowed the portions of petitioners’s claimed 1987 $332,696              
          net operating loss carryback that were claimed on petitioners’              
          1985 and 1986 Federal income tax returns.                                   
               For 1985 and 1986, respondent also determined that                     
          petitioner was liable for additions to tax for fraud and for                
          substantially understating his Federal income tax liability.                
               Certain other adjustments made by respondent against                   
          petitioners in each notice of deficiency are no longer in                   
          dispute.                                                                    
               At trial, respondent sought to significantly increase the              
          illegal drug income to be charged to petitioner for each year.              
               As indicated, the tax deficiencies reflected in respondent’s           
          notice of deficiency to Martha Mchan were based solely on                   
          Martha’s alleged joint liability under section 6013 for the tax             
          deficiencies determined against petitioner, and no fraud or other           
          additions to tax were determined against Martha.                            



               2 Respondent’s calculations of petitioner’s income from the            
          sale of marijuana were also used by the District Court in the               
          second criminal forfeiture action against petitioner.                       





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011