Walter L. Medlin - Page 47

                                       - 133 -                                        
               Respondent relies on the sale of 10 acres in East Lake Vista           
          as evidence of an underpayment for 1988.  Considering our                   
          discussion above with respect to the sales of acres from East               
          Lake Vista in 1986, we hold that respondent has proven by clear             
          and convincing evidence that petitioner owned a 50-percent                  
          interest in East Lake Vista at the time of the sale in 1988 and             
          that he realized gain of $19,522 in 1988 from the sale of his 50-           
          percent interest.                                                           
               Respondent also relies on the $140,000 that was deposited              
          into Mr. Miles’s law firm’s trust account for petitioner on July            
          8, 1988.  Petitioner established that the $140,000 was traceable            
          to a $140,000 check from Dean Witter and that the check stub was            
          signed “RECD BY Richard Margolis”.  Respondent has demonstrated             
          by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was involved in            
          the business of buying and selling real estate; he received                 
          substantial amounts of income from numerous property transactions           
          in this business; those property transactions were carried out              
          using trustees, including Mr. Miles; proceeds from those                    
          transactions were deposited into Mr. Miles’s law firm’s trust               
          account; and those proceeds represented income taxable to                   
          petitioner but which he failed to report.  By petitioner’s own              
          account, the $140,000 check from Dean Witter and allegedly from             
          Mr. Margolis was attributable to a transaction which was in form            
          a sale of petitioner’s property.  We hold that respondent has               






Page:  Previous  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011