Alton C. Bingham - Page 17

                                        -17-                                          
          deposits when he endorsed the $676,720.68 check; (d) used the               
          $666,720.68 time deposit as collateral for two loans in his own             
          name in the amounts of $140,000 and $500,000; (e) used the                  
          $500,000 loan to invest in the CFA Notes, from which he claimed a           
          $150,000 short-term capital loss on his 1984 return; (f) bought             
          the Yreka property in his own name with the $140,000 loan and               
          claimed a loss from the property on his 1984 return; (g) used the           
          $666,720.68 time deposit to repay both loans and had the                    
          remaining proceeds deposited in the account of A.C. Bingham &               
          Associates; and (h) did not report the $676,720.68 on his 1984              
          return.                                                                     
               Respondent further contends that petitioner did not give any           
          of the land sale proceeds to the Lopps in 1984 and that                     
          petitioner knew that he was required to report as income any of             
          the funds he did not give to the Lopps.  However, we disagree               
          that respondent has so proven.  The special agent and revenue               
          agent testified that petitioner did not return any of the money             
          to the Lopps in 1984, but they said that he returned $200,000 to            
          them in 1985.  However, neither agent said how he or she learned            
          whether or when petitioner returned funds to the Lopps; e.g.,               
          from written documents or interviews with witnesses with personal           
          knowledge.  Respondent did not offer any such documents or call             
          any witnesses who had personal knowledge.  Also, respondent did             
          not seek to offer a report containing this information into                 
          evidence under the hearsay exception for public records.  Fed. R.           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011