- 118 -
The pages of respondent’s opening brief to which petitioner
refers are where respondent details respondent’s contentions as
to fraudulently omitted constructive dividends totaling
$13,322.32. See supra table 15. Thus, petitioner appears to
concede these omissions, although contesting his involvement in
these omissions and in any fraud that might be associated
therewith. Despite petitioner’s broad concession, however, we
reduce this $13,322.32 figure by (1) $6,117.68 of allowances by
respondent and (2) $1,241.21 of expenses determined by respondent
to be fraudulently omitted constructive dividends, but with
respect to which we did not find a personal purpose.29
In the notice of deficiency for 1986, respondent determined
that omitted constructive dividend income was only $11,659.62.
See supra table 11. This resulted from respondent’s allowing a
total of $6,117.68 from the challenged items--the sum of the four
adjustments shown on supra table 12, in connection with check
Nos. 2137 ($1,674), 2162 ($3,057.61), and 2220 ($598), and the
$788.07 adjustment not related to a specific check. Although
there is some suggestion that respondent has had second thoughts
about some or all of those allowances, respondent has not moved
to amend the answer to reduce the amount of any of these
allowances. Also, respondent has failed to clarify precisely
29 On the other side of the coin, we found that certain
expenses had a personal purpose, with respect to which respondent
did not allege fraud. Compare supra table 12 with table 15.
Page: Previous 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011