- 9 -
In Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-99, we stated
that
We do not believe it necessary to repeat all of our
findings of fact to demonstrate our reasons for concluding
that * * * [petitioner] not only had reason to know, but
actually had knowledge, that the returns contained
substantial understatements. * * * [Petitioner's] actual
knowledge is established by the simple fact that * * *
[petitioner] admitted that she asked David why there was no
income on the returns reflecting the money that had been
coming to her through him from Hitech, and which the family
had been living on during the years in issue. * * *
We subsequently stated:
[Petitioner] also had reason to know of the
substantial understatements. She was well aware of David's
involvement in Hitech, and during 1984 she received 23
Hitech checks from David totaling $54,500, which she
deposited into her separate checking accounts. During 1985,
she received 15 Hitech checks from David totaling $140,500
which she deposited into her separate checking accounts.
Throughout these years * * * [petitioner] wrote large checks
on her individual account to charities, political
candidates, and for home improvements. She had to know that
her own meager earnings from nursing were vastly
insufficient to provide these funds. [Id.]
In Wiksell v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-3, we stated:
Petitioner was, however, precisely aware of the amounts
derived from Hitech via David that actually passed through
her hands. As we have found, in 1984, petitioner was given
23 checks from Hitech, totaling $54,500. In 1985,
petitioner received 15 Hitech checks totaling $140,500.
During these same years petitioner spent substantial amounts
for clothing for herself and her children, loans to a child,
charitable and political contributions, entertainment and
gifts, home furnishings, home repair and maintenance, credit
card payments, mortgage payments, and numerous other
miscellaneous expenses.
In essence, petitioner argues that because we used similar
facts to derive two different conclusions (i.e., "had reason to
know" versus "precisely aware"), it follows that these facts
could not have justified both conclusions. According to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011