- 12 -
that there is no evidence to show that petitioner was under a
court order to pay any part of his earnings to his former wife
for her support or for the support of their children.
The facts on which respondent relies, either taken alone or
taken together, do not justify the conclusion that petitioner
acted as if he were solely entitled to the income. Respondent,
first and foremost, asserts that an examination of the entire
record in this case demonstrates that petitioner had complete
control and dominion over his income for the taxable years 1991,
1992, and 1993. Respondent alleges that the following facts
illustrate petitioner's control and dominion over the income.
During 1991 and the first 7 months of 1992, petitioner maintained
signature authority over the bank account in Conifer, Colorado,
where petitioner deposited money for his children's support and
the support of his wife. Therefore, even though petitioner
deposited funds in an account for Peggy Layman to use for her
support and the support of her children, petitioner still
maintained the ability to remove every dollar that he deposited
in the account. If he chose to, petitioner could have deposited
the funds one day and reclaimed them the next day.
Respondent's allegations miss the mark. Even though
petitioner's name was left on the bank account at Mountain Valley
National Bank in Conifer, Colorado, used exclusively by his wife
during 1991 and 1992, there is not one check or withdrawal made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011