- 5 -
account. He did so in increments of less than $10,000, because
of his belief, as he explained in a deposition taken in
connection with the divorce proceeding, that by doing so he would
not “necessarily alert the IRS, and those that have interest, in
those amounts, to look at the transaction.”
As it turned out, as of the date of trial, almost 6 years
after the event, petitioner had not actually received any of the
proceeds from the sale of the townhouse.
Pursuant to petitioner’s claim to her one-half share of the
joint check made in the divorce proceedings, the divorce decree:
(1) Recognizes that under Florida law, petitioner and her former
spouse had equal rights to any income generated by the sale
of the townhouse; (2) notes that petitioner’s former spouse
improperly appropriated 100 percent of the proceeds from the sale
of the townhouse; and (3) grants petitioner the following relief:
[Petitioner’s former spouse] shall pay to * * *
[petitioner] as and for lump sum alimony to reimburse
her for the loss sustained by her as a result of * * *
[petitioner’s former spouse’s] misappropriation of 100%
of the proceeds from the sale of three properties for
which * * * [petitioner’s former spouse] claimed only
one-half of the gain on his income taxes, the sum of
$63,440.00. This sum shall be paid directly by * * *
[petitioner’s former spouse] to * * * [petitioner]
within five (5) days of the date of the entry of this
Final Judgement.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011