- 15 -
his personal return, his failure to do so was an honest mistake.
Respondent views differently the same evidence.
Respondent argues that the cash amounts represent earnings
of E & A of Illinois skimmed by petitioner as "diverted
receipts", or constructive dividends, that petitioner should have
reported as taxable income on his personal return. Respondent
argues that the Savage return only reported the disputed amounts
after petitioner discovered he was under criminal investigation
by the IRS and is itself an act in continuation of petitioner's
fraud for the year 1982.
Even where the nonmoving party on a motion for summary
judgment would have the burden of proof at trial on an issue, she
is entitled to have the most favorable inferences drawn in her
behalf and to be given the benefit of favorable legal theories
invoked by the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Charbonnages de France v. Smith, 597 F.2d
406, 414 (4th Cir. 1979).
The present record indicates a 3-year pattern of unexplained
excess cash expenditures by petitioner as well as extensive uses
of currency. In addition, we cannot overlook petitioner's
stipulation to pleading guilty to the criminal violation of
filing a false individual income tax return for the year 1980.
In a signed plea agreement with the Government, petitioner
admitted receiving income from "skimming cash proceeds from
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011