George Maciel - Page 47

                                       - 47 -                                         
               (2) Petitioner diverted substantial amounts of money from              
          his related corporations, Alviso and GMT.  To hide the character            
          of these funds petitioner gave a portion of these diverted funds            
          back to his corporations, labeling those funds as loans.  To that           
          end, petitioner purposely misled his accountants as to the true             
          nature of these funds.  For example, on one of GMT’s bank                   
          statements for the account into which a $50,000 check was                   
          deposited, there is a handwritten notation that the corporation’s           
          bookkeeper made which reads “Art [the accountant]- George put               
          this money out of pocket - don’t credit as income.  We’re going             
          to pay our line of credit monthly out of this account, Yvonne.”             
               (3) Petitioner garnered significant funds over a 3-year                
          period from his solely owned, unincorporated business Newark T&B,           
          and he failed to report any income earned therefrom.  Petitioner            
          characterized this endeavor on his income tax returns Schedules E           
          as a “lot”.  Furthermore, petitioner failed to maintain proper              
          books and records for this business.                                        
               (4) Petitioner maintained an automobile racing business,               
          which also earned him substantial sums of income.  Again,                   

               53(...continued)                                                       
          very least vague and ill-informing.  This statement speaks only             
          to petitioner’s inability “TO REPORT HIS SHARE OF THE                       
          PARTNERSHIP’S ACTIVITY FOR THE 1990 TAX YEAR.”  The statement               
          does not communicate that in 1990 petitioner received at least              
          $300,000 of value in exchange for his interest, a transaction               
          which is clearly not a “partnership activity”.  Furthermore, the            
          statement refers only to Tri-City and not to Newark Wreckers.               






Page:  Previous  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011