William D. Zack - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         
          the false invoice scheme in 1986.  Petitioner did not report on             
          his 1985 or 1986 Federal income tax return any of the amounts               
          that he received from the false invoice scheme.                             
               During 1984, the Zachova entities began looking into                   
          contracting with Ford Motor Co. (Ford) to do work for it.                   
          Petitioner and Sova met with a Ford employee named Ed Cooper                
          (Cooper), and Cooper told petitioner and Sova that they would               
          secretly have to pay him money (bribes) for Ford to award                   
          contracts to the Zachova entities.  Petitioner and Sova discussed           
          Cooper's demand, and petitioner and Sova decided to pay Cooper on           
          behalf of the Zachova entities for an award of Ford contracts.              
          Petitioner and Sova each paid Cooper a total of $90,286 during              
          1985 and 1986, and, in return, Ford awarded some of its contracts           
          to the Zachova entities.  Petitioner and Sova used some of the              
          money that they received from the false invoice scheme to pay               
          Cooper the bribes.                                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
               Respondent determined and argues that petitioner failed to             
          report for the respective years in issue income of $217,162 and             
          $94,439 realized from the false invoice scheme.  Respondent                 
          asserts that petitioner exerted dominion and control over all the           
          funds he received from that scheme and that he was free to use              
          those funds as he chose.  Petitioner does not dispute the fact              
          that he received the amounts determined by respondent to be                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011