- 11 -
hiring practices, and marketing in addition to advising her with
respect to specific clients. Petitioner further testified that the
State of California required that she utilize the type of services
performed by Mr. Maynard. Respondent, on the other hand, argues
that petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving that these
amounts were paid to Mr. Maynard for consulting services.
Respondent contends that any services that Mr. Maynard may have
performed would not have warranted the large amount paid to him.
Respondent urges us to view this as a "family situation" and
suggests that the $52,999.50 was simply a transfer of money between
petitioner and her husband.
These very same payments totaling $52,999.50 from petitioner
to her husband are also at issue in a separate case involving
petitioner's husband--Maynard v. Commissioner, docket No. 13220-93.
That case was originally scheduled for trial on May 16, 1994, at
Carson City, Nevada.4 When that case was called, the parties in
that case filed a stipulation disposing of some, but not all, of
the issues, and we granted Mr. Maynard's motion to continue his
case. The case was subsequently tried before Judge Gerber on June
12, 1995.
One of the issues in Mr. Maynard's case was whether he
fraudulently failed to report the $52,999.50 he received from
petitioner. The Commissioner's Answer in that case alleged:
4Petitioner's case was tried on May 19, 1994, in Carson
City, Nevada.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011