Attorney-at-Law

LET’S PLAY JEOPARDY! – REDUX

In Uncategorized on 12/18/2023 at 18:25

“I’ll try pottery for $253,741,” says Victor Attisha and Josephine Attisha, T. C. Memo. 2023-150, filed 12/18/23. It’s Vic’s story. Besides his legitimate credit card processing operation and ATM standalones, Vic and his partners were flogging boo and allegedly running the boodle through his Holy Moly Donut Shop (really; ya can’t make this stuff up). Enter the DEA and its Oakland County, MI anti-drug task force, who raid Vic’s operations with search warrants and haul away enough to cause Vic to cop to one count of Conspiracy to Manufacture, Possess with Intent to Distribute, and Distribute Marijuana in USDCEDMI. The Federales also grab $500K in cash from the Donut store and various bank accounts and safe deposits. Vic also gets a Section 6861 jeopardy assessment, which means no SNOD, but a ticket to Tax Court anyway per Section 6213(a).

There’s no records (Vic had some ledger sheets, but not specific), and almost no bank deposits. Vic claims IRS has no basis for the deficiency, but Judge Alina I. (“AIM”) Marshall finds Vic’s plea and the stuff DEA grabbed connects him to the potfloggery.  And the search warrants, plea, and whatever paper IRS was able to get from DEA was enough to support the assessment. Even hearsay or other inadmissible evidence can support a deficiency, lest clever crooks escape taxation.

Finally, Vic’s and his partners’ testimony vary widely. His explanation that he sold his credit card operation to his partners (hence the $500K in cash he got) founders when compared with the sale agreement. Now I’ve seen deals renegotiated at the closing to a point where the contract of sale bears zero relationship to the actual deal; but we’re always careful to document the variances, for ease of the CPAs and to enable our malpractice insurers to sleep soundly. Vic has no paper.

Vic loses.

Need I add that the sovereign State of Michigan legalized possession and use of marijuana (even for recreational purposes) the year after the year at issue?

I will spare my readers the political rant.

Edited to add, 10/3/25: Per Stipulated Decision filed May 5, 2021, it has been stipulated and agreed between IRS and all parties as follows: TO THE EXTENT IT IS DETERMINED THAT THERE IS A DEFICIENCY IN INCOME TAX AS WELL AS ANY PENALTIES DUE FROM PETITIONERS FOR THE 2017 TAXABLE YEAR, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT PETITIONER JOSEPHINE ATTISHA IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR THE 2017 TAXABLE YEAR PURSUANT TO I.R.C. §6015 (C).

This means that only her ex-spouse is liable for anything. AS I SAID IN MY ORIGINAL BLOGPOST, “THIS IS VIC’S STORY,” NOT JOSEPHINE’S.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.