- 11 -
proper schedules. We reject the notion that petitioner--or any
bankrupt--can obtain a discharge of debts owed to unrelated
parties and preserve purported other claims for the benefit of
his wife and children by failing to schedule them in the
bankruptcy proceeding.
Petitioner contends that the $110,000 he deposited into the
bank account of Iowa Prairie was a payment of rents owed by
Cheyenne to Mesa and Teton. Iowa Prairie did not engage in any
activity related to farming or to Cheyenne, Mesa, or Teton.
Petitioner contends that he deposited money in the account of
Iowa Prairie for payment of rent Cheyenne owed to Mesa because
Mesa did not have its own checking account. Petitioner provides
no such explanation, nor any other explanation, with respect to
the rent Cheyenne allegedly owed to Teton. There is no evidence
in the record showing how, if at all, the alleged $110,000 of
payments was ultimately received by Mesa and Teton.
For 1989, Mesa and Teton reported rental income in the
amounts of $60,000 and $52,200, respectively, and taxable income
of $13,829 and $31,754, respectively. Mrs. Foust owns the shares
of Mesa and is trustee of the shares of Teton beneficially owned
by petitioner’s and Mrs. Foust’s children.
Petitioner has presented neither any evidence that he was
personally liable for the debts of Cheyenne nor any evidence of
the terms of any arrangements under which Cheyenne would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011