- 8 -
listed on the pink sheets with the bank deposits recorded on the
bank statements for Cedar Hill’s account. He was also unable to
match the figures from Cedar Hill’s white sheets with those from
the pink sheets. To resolve these discrepancies, Mr. Paskert
expanded his investigation to the personal tax returns of
petitioners. He requested and received petitioners’ personal
bank records in the fall of 1989, which indicated that
petitioners had made deposits that far exceeded the income
reported on their returns. In a subsequent telephone interview
with Mr. Paskert, when asked about these excess deposits, Mr.
Parsons admitted that all the funds in petitioners’ bank account
consisted of either Mrs. Parsons’ wages or money removed from
Cedar Hill. At a second meeting in December 1989, Mr. Parsons
admitted to Mr. Paskert that the pink sheets did not reflect all
of the cash withdrawn from Cedar Hill by petitioners.
Mr. and Mrs. Parsons were subsequently indicted and, after a
jury trial, convicted of two violations of section 7206(1) with
respect to their 1987 and 1988 returns, for subscribing to false
income tax returns. Specifically, the indictments charged
petitioners with reporting on each return total income which they
knew to be false.
Petitioners reported gross income of $49,660 and $54,379 in
1987 and 1988, respectively, which included salary income of Mr.
Parsons from Cedar Hill of $25,000 and $30,000, respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011