- 18 -
not clear and convincing evidence that Renaissance funds were
actually so diverted by petitioner.
Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that petitioner
received any accession to wealth from the funds that Renaissance
deposited in the Ron Gelfman bank account. Respondent has not
proven that petitioner controlled the Gelfman bank account. Cf.
Beasley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-173 (holding that
corporate funds diverted into controlled nominee bank accounts
for noncorporate purposes were income).
The only evidence linking petitioner with the Gelfman
account is a notation "I.D. by Eric Wynn" on the bottom of a
check with three endorsements by a Ron Gelfman cashed against the
Gelfman account. This "I.D. by Eric Wynn" does not prove that
petitioner controlled the account or any of the funds deposited
in the Gelfman account. Respondent's witness, Mr. Schlitt,
testified that when a check is endorsed three times it probably
means that the first endorsement is made outside of the bank, the
second is in front of the teller, and the third is in front of a
bank officer. Mr. Schlitt also testified that two people would
have been present for the check to have a triple endorsement and
a second identification. This testimony indicates that someone
signed this check as Ron Gelfman in the presence of a bank teller
and officer. Although we believe that this person was not the
Ron Gelfman who testified at the criminal trial, it is possible
that the person who signed the checks and the signature card
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011