- 5 -
David pleaded guilty to various counts of fraud involving the
sale of unregistered securities in connection with his
participation in the fraudulent investment scheme.
On their 1984 and 1985 returns, David and petitioner
reported adjusted gross income of $10,525 and $4,298,
respectively, of which approximately $9,801 in 1984 and $1,760 in
1985 represented petitioner's wages from part-time nursing.
Petitioner signed the 1984 return on June 16, 1987, and the 1985
return on November 9, 1987.
At the time she signed the 1984 and 1985 returns, petitioner
questioned David about why the returns contained no income
reflecting the money that he had given her in those years. She
stated that he gave her
such a bizarre explanation that I don't think I could even
repeat it, I mean what he told me. * * * It was something
along the fact that it had been investment--that he had
investments in * * * [Hitech] that had been lost and this
was return, or something along those lines. * * * it just
didn't make sense to me.
Petitioner suspected that David was lying, but she would not
press him further on the matter. David had gotten violent when
Margaret or others "probed" into his finances.
Discussion
Reconsideration under Rule 161 serves the limited purpose of
correcting manifest errors of fact or law, also allowing for the
introduction of newly discovered evidence that could not have
been introduced before the filing of an opinion, even if the
moving party had exercised due diligence. See Estate of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011