Carl Dimichele and Eileen Dimichele - Page 40

                  Pursuant to the regulations, we also look to transfers              
             of property in years following the years at issue.  Sec.                 
             1.6013-5(b).  In 1994, the Trina Drive property, which was               
             purchased in 1985, was sold for $64,000.  Originally                     
             purchased jointly by the DiMicheles, title had been                      
             transferred to petitioner exclusively after Mr. DiMichele's              
             incarceration.  Thus, petitioner personally received all of              
             the proceeds from the sale, which constitutes a benefit to               
             petitioner.                                                              
                  Petitioner has demonstrated no current source of                    
             income or financial support, so we assume that her living                
             money is still coming out of her and her husband's                       
             accumulated assets.  We therefore infer that she is still                
             benefitting from the use of money traceable to the tax                   
             understatements resulting from unreported income earned in               
             the tax years at issue.                                                  
                  Petitioner, furthermore, retained a substantial                     
             portion of the couple's assets when Mr. DiMichele was sent               
             to prison.  All assets which petitioner claimed and that                 
             were not forfeited to the Federal Government were retained               
             by petitioner.                                                           
                  It is noted that subsequent to Mrs. DiMichele's filing              
             for divorce in April, 1994, no further action has been                   
             taken and Mr. DiMichele continues to live at petitioner's                
             residence in Philadelphia.  This factor therefore will be                
             accorded no weight in the 6013(e)(1)(D) determination.                   
                  Moreover, in light of the foregoing discussion and of               
             other evidence, we conclude that petitioner did have                     
             knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the tax                       
             understatements, satisfying section 6013(e)(1)(C).  In                   
             thus concluding, we credit the testimony of Mr. Madgin.                  
             Mr. Madgin testified that he had discussed drug                          
             transactions in petitioner's presence on at least one                    
             occasion.  He also testified that petitioner had been                    
             involved in a drug transaction when he delivered to her a                
             bag of cash to give to her husband.  We find that                        
             petitioner was intelligent and competent.  Petitioner's                  
             knowledge of her husband's drug activities was coupled with              










Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011