Steven J. Romer - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          petitioner with respect to Votano (namely, $741,000 for 1988),              
          with respect to the Marion Family Trusts (namely, $4,087,000 for            
          1989), with respect to Saferstein (namely, $975,000 for 19892),             
          and with respect to Ripps (namely, $1,200,000 for 1990).  The               
          evidence indicates (by, among other things, petitioner's own                
          acknowledgment in the letter to his clients) that petitioner took           
          control of these funds and that petitioner, without permission of           
          his clients, misappropriated these funds and failed to repay his            
          clients.  Petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of proving            
          to the contrary.  On the facts of this case, we sustain                     
          respondent's determination that the above funds should be charged           
          to petitioner as taxable embezzlement income for each of the                
          years indicated.                                                            
               Petitioner alleges constitutional defects in the State court           
          criminal trial leading up to his conviction, and petitioner                 
          argues therefrom that, in spite of his conviction and the                   
          restitution order, he should not be estopped in this proceeding             
          from disputing his receipt of embezzlement income.  We disagree.            
          Petitioner has not established such fundamental flaws in his                
          State court conviction that the doctrine of collateral estoppel             
          should not apply to establish that petitioner embezzled funds               
          from clients.  28 U.S.C. sec. 1738 (1988); Kremer v. Chemical               

          2    As explained, with regard to Saferstein, the order of                  
          restitution reflected $1 million and respondent's notice of                 
          deficiency reflected $975,900.  The amount stipulated by the                
          parties and that we use is $975,000.                                        

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011