Christa Karin Mueller - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          Gordon Case                                                                 
               Katherine and Richard Gordon (the Gordons) were shareholders           
          in Omni and made other investments in entities closely associated           
          with husband.  In 1985, the Gordons brought suit in State court             
          to recover losses incurred through the fraudulent activities of             
          husband, Omni, and other entities controlled by him.  Judgments             
          from these suits (the State court judgments) exceeded $1 million.           
               In 1994, the Gordons filed suit in the U.S. District Court             
          for the Middle District of Florida (the District Court suit and             
          the District Court, respectively) to execute on the $450,000 cash           
          bail.  Petitioner was a defendant in the District Court suit.               
          Among the findings made by the District Court were the following:           
              “The * * * [1994 conviction] involved the same facts                   
               and circumstances for which the Plaintiffs obtained                    
               their judgment[s] [the state court judgments], i.e.,                   
               failing to pay taxes on the money Mr. Mueller stole                    
               from investors such as the Plaintiffs.   * * *  The                    
               Trust [trust] is funded by money fraudulently conveyed                 
               to it by Reinhard and Christa-Karin Mueller.”                          
               The District Court held, among other things, that the cash             
          bail was subject to execution by the Gordons.                               


                                       OPINION                                        
          I.  Deficiency in Tax                                                       
               A.  Introduction                                                       
               We must first determine whether respondent erred by                    
          including in petitioner and husband’s gross income embezzlement             






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011