Jack J. Kramer - Page 25

                                                 - 25 -                                                   
            computations.17  Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, supra at 361; see                              
            also Hobart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-517.  But, the                                   
            required showing of an evidentiary linkage is only "minimal",                                 
            Blohm v. Commissioner, supra at 1549 (citing Carson v. United                                 
            States, 560 F.2d 693, 697 (5th Cir. 1977) (quoting Gerardo v.                                 
            Commissioner, 552 F.2d 549, 554 (3d Cir. 1977), affg. in part and                             
            revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1975-341)), and petitioner's admitted                                
            participation in money laundering on Ben's behalf clearly                                     
            provides such a linkage.  Petitioner's admission establishes not                              
            only that he was linked to illegal activity, but that he received                             
            income from that illegal activity.  Much of the funds that flowed                             
            through Safra and Barnett money market in 1985 and 1986 came from                             
            the card club through LCP Associates.                                                         
                  Because of the "obvious intent of that Congress to tax                                  
            income derived from both legal and illegal sources, to remove the                             
            incongruity of having the gains of the honest laborer taxed and                               
            the gains of the dishonest immune", funds from illegal sources                                
            have long been considered taxable income.  James v. United                                    
            States, 366 U.S. 213, 218 (1961) (quoting Rutkin v. United                                    
            States, 343 U.S. 130, 138 (1952)).  However, in James v. United                               


            17As discussed supra pp. 20-22, respondent did not                                            
            substantiate her deficiency calculations and stipulated evidence                              
            that would support different--although not necessarily smaller--                              
            amounts.  But the evidence does substantiate the order of                                     
            magnitude of the IRS computations.  The differences are                                       
            relatively insignificant (the biggest discrepancy is the $75,200                              
            understatement by the statutory notice of deficiency for 1986 and                             
            1987 as compared to the bank records, which is less than 10                                   
            percent of the actual deposits of $849,128).                                                  



Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011