Maureen Monsour - Page 39

                                        - 39 -                                        
               of those issues (except the minor issue involving Peti-                
               tioner’s law office income adjustment) involved only                   
               Petitioner’s husband.  Clearly, all of the understate-                 
               ments could only be attributable to the husband’s activ-               
               ities, namely his investments or omissions from income,                
               since only he was involved in those activities.                        
               Respondent counters that                                               
               a portion of the deficiencies for two years were from                  
               unreported income from petitioner’s law practice and not               
               solely from Dr. Monsour.  Also, for three years of                     
               deficiencies, it is more likely than not that unreported               
               income reflected in deposits to joint accounts of peti-                
               tioner and Dr. Monsour and single accounts in the name                 
               of petitioner are part of the deficiencies.                            
                    * * * [Moreover,] there is no evidence as to the                  
               amount of an understatement of tax now due for a partic-               
               ular year as to a specific erroneous item of her hus-                  
               band. * * *                                                            
               The determinations about which we are aware34 that respondent          
          made in the notice for the taxable years at issue relate to the             
          joint bank accounts of petitioner and Mr. Monsour, petitioner’s             
          separate bank account, petitioner’s law practice bank account,              
          Monsour Medical Center, Laurel Valley Farms, the Three Crowns               
          Hotel, Azure Tides, Inc., Georgetown Square,35 the Three Crowns             


               34See supra notes 9 through 12 and 18 and accompanying text.           
               35We have found that respondent conceded respondent’s deter-           
          mination of omitted income with respect to Georgetown Square for            
          one or more of the taxable years 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 not             
          disclosed by the record.  In the notice for the taxable years at            
          issue, respondent also made a determination of an erroneous                 
          deduction with respect to Georgetown Square for one or more of              
          the taxable years 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 not disclosed by the           
          record.  Hereinafter, our references to the determination with              
          respect to Georgetown Square shall be to a determination of an              
          erroneous deduction for one or more of those years.                         





Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011