- 121 -
experience in the tax field” makes this awareness of greater
significance, this pattern of omissions “was part of a larger
pattern of tax evasion in which distributions of earnings and
profits of Markette and related corporations were disguised as
deductible compensation and in which petitioner had the guiding
hand”, and petitioner’s “false and misleading statements to
respondent and the Court”, all lead to the conclusion that
petitioner had a “fraudulent intent”, in omitting the
constructive dividend income.
Petitioner maintains that “Betsy managed all Grossman family
affairs” and “made arrangements for all travel”, during the years
in issue “Betsy oversaw corporate administration” of the Sley
Corporations, “Betsy gave petitioner instructions on how to carry
out his duties, [regarding the Sley Corporations] and petitioner
followed them”, and “petitioner relied upon Betsy, Ben, Bea and
Berger to allocate through reimbursements and their yearly
dividend declarations between business and personal expenses”.
Petitioner also points out that respondent had previously audited
petitioner’s and Betsy’s 1983 and 1985 tax returns, and
respondent then determined that petitioner and Betsy had overpaid
their taxes. Finally, petitioner insists that he relied on
Baybrook and Berger--both of whom were highly qualified and had
access to all books and records--to (1) assure the accuracy of
Page: Previous 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011