Leo N. Levitt and Ruth G. Levitt - Page 46

                                       - 46 -                                         
          the taxpayer to some tax-generating activity.  Id.; Schad v.                
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 609, 620 (1986), affd. without published              
          opinion 827 F.2d 774 (11th Cir. 1987).  The record here clearly             
          links petitioners to the unreported income.  Polymer and Chemical           
          Traders had no business purpose.  Petitioner controlled the                 
          Polymer and Chemical Traders accounts.  We conclude that                    
          petitioner controlled Polymer because he caused Resyn to pay                
          Polymer for fictitious sales, he had Levenson sign blank Polymer            
          checks, and he withdrew substantial amounts of cash from the                
          Polymer account.  We conclude that petitioner controlled Chemical           
          Traders because he concealed it and its bank account from his               
          accountants and bookkeepers, he withdrew substantial amounts of             
          cash from the account, and he used funds from the account to buy            
          stock.  Resyn paid petitioner's personal expenses directly.                 
          Petitioner paid at least $428,382 for personal stock investments            
          with funds from Chemical Traders.  Petitioner withdrew cash from            
          the Polymer and Chemical Traders accounts.  Records do not exist            
          showing how petitioner used all of the funds that he diverted               
          from Resyn to the Polymer and Chemical Traders accounts.                    
               Petitioners contend that respondent's determination should             
          not be presumed to be correct because respondent did not consider           
          the possibility that petitioner replaced money he had previously            
          taken from his brokerage accounts and because respondent did not            
          analyze petitioners' net worth.  We know of no requirement and              
          petitioners cite none that respondent must conduct a net worth              




Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011