- 28 -
circumstantial evidence strongly corroborates petitioner's story.
The May 1986 meeting in which Fainsbert told petitioner that the
15-percent "kicker" had been eliminated is just one instance of
petitioner as a subordinate participant being presented with a
fait accompli. Another such instance is how, after breaking his
ankle in the boating accident, petitioner never went to
California to assume the role he had sought as overseer of Ben's
investment in the card club, see supra note 11. These incidents
help to demonstrate the tenuousness of petitioner's position in
Ben's enterprises and his lack of any real ownership interest in
them. Also persuasive to us is petitioner's lack of involvement
in the underlying drug smuggling activities.
Even after accepting petitioner's explanations for the
disbursements to and from the various bank accounts, significant
amounts still remain unaccounted for and unexplained in each of
the 3 years. Petitioner failed to discharge his burden of proof
with regard to all the funds that came into his accounts.
Indeed, petitioner used funds from Barnett joint checking
exclusively for his own personal use. Only one deposit in that
account is not income: a $150,000 loan to petitioner by his
sister-in-law. The record does show that funds going through
Safra, and, to a lesser extent, Barnett money market, came from
the card club via LCP Associates and other entities. But,
without more, merely showing the source is insufficient to rebut
the presumption that they were income to petitioner.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011