Richard R. Hamlett - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          case at hand, Petitioner and Jane Parker formed an implied                  
          consensual recognition at the time of the fraudulent sale to                
          later reverse the transaction.”                                             
               Firstly, petitioner conflates the restriction-on-use                   
          question with the obligation-to-repay question.                             
               Secondly, petitioner does not state what restrictions there            
          were, nor does he even ask us to make a finding of fact that                
          there were restrictions.                                                    
               Thirdly, in Nordberg there was evidence as to what the                 
          taxpayer did with the money he received.  79 T.C. at 662-664.               
          There is no such evidence in the record in the instant case.  We            
          may fairly assume that petitioner is in a far better position               
          than respondent to know what he in fact used the $100,000 for and           
          what, if any, restrictions were imposed on his use of this money.           
          From petitioner’s failure to present to the Court evidence as to            
          (1) what he did with the money and (2) what restrictions, if any,           
          were imposed on the use of the money, we infer that if such                 
          evidence had been presented, then it would have been harmful to             
          petitioner.  See O’Dwyer v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 575, 584 (4th            
          Cir. 1959), affg. 28 T.C. 698, 703 (1957); Stoumen v.                       
          Commissioner, 208 F.2d 903, 907 (3d Cir. 1953), affg. a                     
          Memorandum Opinion of this Court dated March 13, 1953; Wichita              
          Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946),            
          affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011