Big Hong Ng - Page 18

                                        -18-                                          
          belonging to separate entities Ms. Ng owned.  However, Ms. Ng               
          treated accounts belonging to entities she owned as though they             
          were her personal accounts.  As stated previously, she disregarded          
          the legal ownership of the accounts and commingled personal funds           
          with funds of the entities she controlled.  She also disregarded            
          legal ownership of the accounts when writing checks. We find that           
          it was reasonable for respondent to treat the accounts as belonging         
          to Ms. Ng, as she herself had done.                                         
               Upon review of all of respondent's adjustments and supporting          
          documentation, we conclude that with the exception of certain               
          amounts deposited into the tip account that we found should be              
          excluded from Ms. Ng's reconstructed income, and $32,559 of                 
          cancellation of indebtedness  income  for  1989,1 Ms. Ng had                

               1    Respondent determined that amounts deposited into                 
          Strong Hope's account at Union Bank were the income of Ms. Ng.              
          On the books of Strong Hope the deposits were treated as loans to           
          Ms. Ng.  To avoid being whipsawed, respondent increased the                 
          amount Ms. Ng owed to Strong Hope to reflect that the amounts               
          deposited into Strong Hope's account at Union Bank and used for             
          her benefit were amounts Strong Hope loaned to Ms. Ng.                      
          Respondent also adjusted the loan balance shown on the books of             
          Strong Hope as due from Ms. Ng to include expense items that had            
          been booked as loans from Ms. Ng to Strong Hope but which were              
          never substantiated by Ms. Ng.  The net amount left owing to                
          Strong Hope by Ms. Ng was $32,559, and respondent took the                  
          position that this debt was forgiven and/or canceled on May 9,              
          1989, when Strong Hope distributed its one-half interest in 850             
          Stockton Street to Ms. Ng.                                                  
               In her posttrial brief, respondent states that if we hold              
          that "the amounts deposited into Strong Hope's Union Bank account           
          are the income of Ms. Ng", then respondent concedes that the                
          forgiveness of income issue should be resolved in favor of Ms.              
          Ng.                                                                         
               We find that the amounts deposited into Strong Hope's Union            
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011