- 8 -
payment of income tax on such money. Cases in which an issue
turns on motivation or intent are generally inappropriate for
summary judgment, as are those in which the issues turn on the
credibility of the affiants. Conrad v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 494
F.2d 914, 918 (7th Cir. 1974). Whether petitioners received
unreported income from marijuana sales is a factual question
necessitating testimony of witnesses, including cross-
examination, and the examination of evidence regarding the source
and application of funds method of reconstructing income.
Charles' liability for additions to tax for fraud also
presents a factual question to be determined by an examination of
the entire record. Mensik v. Commissioner, 328 F.2d 147, 150
(7th Cir. 1964), affg. 37 T.C. 703 (1962). To establish fraud,
it must be shown that the taxpayer acted with a specific intent
to evade a tax believed to be owing. Kotmair v. Commissioner, 86
T.C. 1253, 1259-1260 (1986).
Material facts remain in dispute regarding petitioners'
liability for the income tax deficiencies and additions to tax,
including the additions for fraud. See Espinoza v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 412 (1982); Hoeme v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 18 (1974).
Accordingly, Charles' motion will be denied.
Motion 2
In Motion 2, Martha argues that she has stated under oath
many times that she knew nothing about Charles' involvement in
marijuana sales until he was arrested in 1988. Moreover, Martha
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011