Henry John Uscinski - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          1985).  Accordingly, petitioner’s prior conviction under section            
          7201 collaterally estops him from denying in the present civil              
          tax proceeding:  (1) That petitioner’s failure to report the                
          unreported funds resulted in an underpayment in his 1996 income             
          tax; and (2) that at least part of the underpayment is due to               
          fraud within the meaning of section 6663.  With respect to these            
          issues, respondent is entitled to summary judgment.                         
               In his motion for summary judgment, respondent concedes that           
          petitioner is not collaterally estopped from challenging the                
          precise amount of the deficiency, inasmuch as the precise amount            
          of the “diverted funds” was not a necessary element of                      
          petitioner’s section 7201 conviction.  Respondent nevertheless              
          contends that he is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.             
          Respondent points to petitioner’s admission in the criminal case            
          that he received $1,551,863 that he failed to report on his 1996            
          tax return.  Respondent also points to petitioner’s March 24,               
          2005, letter to the IRS, wherein he acknowledged that the amount            
          of his unreported income was “approximately USD1,550,000”, as               
          well as to the undisputed fact that between August 1999 and                 
          September 2001 petitioner repaid the government $1,590,000.                 
               Petitioner contends that the evidence as to the amount of              
          his unreported income is “inconsistent and, on that basis,                  
          inconclusive”.  Petitioner contends that respondent has failed to           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011