- 13 -
been influenced by factors that have no relevance to this case,
such as applicable statutes of limitations and the exacting
burden of proof on the government in criminal cases. Whether or
not petitioner could have been convicted of the crime of
embezzlement, he has failed to prove that he did not acquire
complete dominion and control over the funds he received from
Lawrence so as to realize income for tax purposes.
Petitioner points out that some interest was paid to
Lawrence on the funds he received from her. He appears to reason
from this fact either or both of the following: (i) The payment
of interest proves that he treated the funds as a loan during the
years at issue; or (ii) even if he did convert the funds to his
own use and thereby realize income, his income for the years at
issue should be reduced by the amount of interest payments he
made. Neither argument has merit.
First, the pattern of interest payments is not inconsistent
with the conclusion that he embezzled. Payments of interest
would have been calculated to reassure Lawrence in furtherance of
the fraud. The only interest payments by petitioner during the
years at issue that are specifically confirmed by the record are
the first three payments at most. Lawrence testified that it was
these initial scheduled interest payments that induced her to
write the second and third checks.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011