- 6 -
own cases before the Court would be bound by the Court’s findings
and decision in the Lumenetics case.
On September 20, 1989, DiRicco pleaded guilty to, and was
convicted of, violating section 7206(2) for aiding and assisting
in the preparation of false tax returns for two of the limited
partners in the Lumenetics partnership. DiRicco was declared
ineligible to practice law in the State of California on March 7,
1989, and resigned from the bar on July 7, 1989. He was also
disbarred from the U.S. Supreme Court bar. DiRicco, as TMP for
Lumenetics, continued to represent the partnership, pro se, in
the Tax Court litigation. The case was tried on January 28,
1991. In Lumenetics v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-630, the
Court found that (1) Lumenetics failed to meet its burden of
proving that the partnership was entitled to the deduction for
“marketing expenses” and (2) Lumenetics failed to prove that
respondent was barred by the statute of limitations from
assessing taxes for 1983 against the Lumenetics partners with
respect to partnership items.
The opinion in Lumenetics v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-
630 n.4, stated, inter alia:
When the original agreement was allegedly executed in
October of 1983, Lumenetics was not even organized
under the laws of the State of California. Lumenetics’
private placement memorandum is dated Oct. 1, 1983, and
its certificate of limited partnership * * * is dated
Jan. 11, 1984. * * * none of the alleged investors in
Lumenetics actually executed the certificate of limited
partnership. Instead, * * * Steinjann, Lumenetics’
general partner and Mr. DiRicco’s neighbor, executed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011