- 63 -
to divert funds from Resyn shows that petitioner did not divert
funds. We disagree. Petitioner concealed the Chemical Traders
account from Philbin. Petitioner knew that Resyn paid Polymer
for fictitious transactions. Petitioner withdrew a substantial
amount of funds from the Polymer and Chemical Traders bank
accounts in cash and cashier's checks. Philbin's testimony does
not lead us to change our conclusion based on the overwhelming
evidence that petitioner arranged the diversion of funds.
Petitioners contend that Levenson "was the architect of the
scheme". The record clearly shows otherwise. Levenson did not
know about Chemical Traders. Petitioner directed Levenson to
sign and endorse all of the Polymer checks in blank. Levenson
did not benefit from Polymer. Petitioner controlled Resyn,
Polymer, and Chemical Traders. Levenson did not.
Petitioners contend that respondent did not prove fraud
because respondent did not call Hall, who directed the postings,
to testify. We disagree. Even without Hall's testimony,
respondent has clearly shown that petitioner devised, operated,
and benefited from his scheme to divert income from Resyn through
Polymer and Chemical Traders to himself and his family.
5. Conclusion
We conclude that part of petitioner's underpayment of tax
for each year from 1964 to 1970 is due to fraud.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011