- 9 -
We reject this argument, because he controlled all of the
misappropriated funds.
Petitioner asserts that a number of individuals, including
Sullivan, Nelson, and Southern employees, received the funds in
question. Sullivan denied receiving any of the proceeds from the
Southern checks. Although from the record none of the witnesses
seems completely innocent, the preponderance of the evidence is
that Sullivan was a victim of petitioner's misappropriation.
Petitioner was convicted not only of misappropriating funds from
Sullivan's company, Zebrowski, but also of forging the
endorsement on a check payable to Sullivan. Sullivan, on behalf
of Zebrowski, filed a civil suit seeking restitution from
petitioner. Petitioner produced no evidence in support of his
contention that other Southern employees received some of the
funds in question.
Petitioner argues that the checks payable to Nelson should
not be included in his income. "The power to dispose of income
is the equivalent of ownership of it. The exercise of that power
to procure the payment of income to another is the enjoyment, and
hence the realization, of the income by him who exercises it."
Helvering v. Horst, 311 U.S. 112, 118 (1940). A taxpayer is not
relieved of the obligation to pay taxes on income merely by a
transfer of that income to another. United States v. Basye, 410
U.S. 441, 449-451 (1973). Petitioner was the "force and fulcrum"
behind the thefts that made the benefits to Nelson, as well as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011