Leslie R. Barth - Page 20

                                                - 20 -                                                  
                        So that at the time that the statement was made, I                              
                  think--I don't recall the exact words, but it was                                     
                  indicated that amounts were advanced, in other words,                                 
                  which were repaid during the current year or in                                       
                  subsequent years.                                                                     

            This testimony does not in any way exonerate petitioner.                                    
            "Rerouting" funds received from Bergman & Barth would not make                              
            them nontaxable.  To the contrary, petitioner's "rerouting"                                 
            transactions, in the context of the entire record of how he used                            
            multiple entities and devices to minimize or avoid taxes, are                               
            evidence of an intent to conceal income.  Petitioner's prior                                
            admissions of income from the firm of at least $225,000 for each                            
            of the years in issue, made on various financial statements,                                
            belie the later claims that he received only loans and no                                   
            significant taxable income from the firm.  From petitioner's                                
            statement that he "went through" the analysis with Timbie and                               
            Onofrio, we infer that they simply accepted petitioner's                                    
            representations that certain amounts were loans.                                            
                  In this case, petitioner cannot hide behind his employment                            
            of others belatedly to prepare his returns.  He did not provide                             
            accurate, complete, or comprehensible records to the persons that                           
            he employed to prepare the returns.  See Scallen v. Commissioner,                           
            supra at 1371; Foster v. Commissioner, 391 F.2d 727 (4th Cir.                               
            1968), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1965-246;                                 
            Estate of Temple v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 143, 162 (1976).                                  

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