- 22 -
Cir. 1967), affg. in part and remanding in part 43 T.C. 168
(1964)). Petitioner bears the burden of proof. Rule 142(a).
In the petition, petitioner assigns error to respondent's
determination of an addition to tax for negligence on the ground
that there is no deficiency. Petitioner avers no other facts in
support of his assignment of error. On brief, petitioner argues
that petitioner reported the transaction consistently with the
actual receipt of the item and that respondent's assignment of
income theory is not contained in the Code or regulations, but is
a "limited doctrine" contained in case law. Petitioner argues
that petitioner cannot be expected to have intentionally
disregarded that doctrine. Moreover, petitioner argues that
respondent has introduced absolutely no evidence that petitioner
engaged in any scheme to avoid taxes. We disagree. The $408,318
was deposited into a joint account belonging to Hester and
petitioner. Petitioner withdrew substantial sums from that
account and gambled with them in Atlantic City. Such use of the
$408,318 is inconsistent with the statement in the Lipsig firm
affirmation, no doubt based on statements by petitioner or
Hester, that petitioner "has agreed to waive his share of the
legal fees in this case in Hester's behalf so that she may
continue to have the wherewithal to care for her daughter MAUDE."
We believe that petitioner and Hester acted together to structure
receipt of the $408,318 so that petitioner could retain control
of it but claim that he had not received it for income tax
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011