Angela Schwimmer - Page 19

                                           - 19 -                                            
          received only customary spousal and family support.  Martin                        
          appears to have used the majority of the embezzled funds to                        
          finance his speculative investments, in which petitioner did not                   
          participate and from which she did not benefit.  Even were we to                   
          assume that the defined benefit retirement plan and the luxury                     
          cars were purchased with embezzled funds, such property was                        
          forfeited to the U.S. Government pursuant to the forfeiture                        
          agreement, and petitioner appears to have derived no benefit                       
          therefrom.                                                                         
                The evidence in this case regarding the King's Point                         
          residence, luxury cars, jewelry, and vacation trips simply                         
          reflects petitioner's continuing, if not diminished, lifestyle                     
          during the years in issue.                                                         
                Respondent speculates that Martin's transfer, after his                      
          conviction, to petitioner of title in the Kings Point residence                    
          reflected:  (1) An attempt to place the Kings Point residence out                  
          of reach of the forfeiture agreement; and (2) an intent on                         
          petitioner's behalf to interfere with the collection of criminal                   
          penalties imposed upon Martin.  Respondent thus suggests that it                   
          would be inequitable for petitioner not to be held liable for the                  
          income tax deficiencies and additions to tax at issue herein.  We                  
          disagree.  Respondent's speculations are not supported by the                      
          record.                                                                            
                We conclude that petitioner is not liable for the deficiency                 
          in income tax and additions to tax for each year attributable to                   




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011