- 16 - family expenditures during the years at issue.10 These expenditures included, in addition to the basic living expenses required for the Barrancos to live what Dr. Barranco described as a “nice life”: The purchase of over 110 acres; the construction of their primary residence; the payoff of the mortgage on their vacation home after about 8 years; the remodeling of their vacation home; several European vacations; college tuition, room, and board for each of their four children; weddings for their three daughters; diamond jewelry; and the Barrancos’ purchase of several cars and a boat for themselves, as well as at least three cars and a horse for their children. 10 The only direct evidence that petitioner offered on this score came from Dr. Barranco’s testimony. Although Dr. Barranco testified that none of the omitted income was used to benefit the family, his testimony fails to account for the disposition of at least $4,890,932 of omitted income. More particularly, Dr. Barranco testified that 10 percent of the $5,878,813 of omitted income (i.e., about $587,881) went to the New York City accountant and that the remaining 90 percent (i.e., about $5,290,932) was placed-- in checking accounts and funds that I could draw from if I needed it, and an escrow type of account which could be used for investment purposes and it was available. So it was an account that was there. If it was needed, I could tap into it. Dr. Barranco testified that when the authorities uncovered his tax evasion scheme, there was $400,000 or $450,000 in the escrow account which was seized pursuant to the criminal investigation. Assuming, for sake of argument, that this representation is true, it means that at least $4,840,932 ($5,290,932 minus $450,000) of the omitted income is unaccounted for.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011