- 167 -
However, petitioner's stated belief about these funds has
little to do with the issue of who earned the income. We are
unwilling to base a finding solely upon petitioner's testimony
that there was a WHIP Swiss bank account for the benefit of an
Iranian Government official to which most of the Lockheed
commissions were sent (an arrangement which, we note, may have
been illegal) and that these commissions were directed to such an
account merely because petitioner was following that official's
instructions. Aside from the $610,000 withdrawal in 1978,
petitioner has failed to convince us that he did not actually
receive any of the WHIP funds.
Moreover, regardless of where the WHIP funds actually went,
they were earned primarily through the efforts of petitioner via
his contacts with the Iranian Government. First, WHIP was
entirely subject to petitioner's control: The formation of this
entity was his idea (or so he informed the then Prime Minister of
Iran); he set up the entity; and he managed the entity in that
Price Waterhouse was subject to his control in connection with
the management of WHIP. There is no evidence that Diesel Power
earned these funds. Second, petitioner handled the WHIP accounts
as if they were his own, moving funds around from location to
location at will, and finally withdrawing the remaining $610,000
for himself in 1978 in an attempt to obtain disputed funds from
Diesel Power. This is hardly the behavior that petitioner would
Page: Previous 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011