Sam F. Ford and Ingrid D. Ford - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          by the Blackbird Investments trading account, and from a Toronado           
          Resources account.  These funds were used by Ms. Ford to purchase           
          the Montecito home and for Mr. Ford’s payment of taxes owed from            
          the 1970s.  In March 1986, Mr. Ford authorized a withdrawal from            
          a Solar Aquafarms, Ltd. account, which Ms. Ford used to buy fur             
          coats at the Pappas Fur Co. in Canada.  Mr. Ford also transferred           
          money from various Canadian corporate accounts, derived from                
          International Tillex stock transactions, into his own bank                  
          accounts.  Further, in April 1986, funds were transferred from at           
          least one of the Canadian corporate accounts into a bank account            
          in Beverly Hills, California, belonging to Ms. Ford.  Ms. Ford              
          purchased a house in Montecito, California, in 1986, financed by            
          a mortgage for which funds from a Blackbird Investments account             
          were pledged as security.  Approximately $25,000 was also taken             
          from a Toronado Resources account for a downpayment.  At the time           
          of the purchase, Blackbird Investments had a brokerage account in           
          Canada which traded in International Tillex stock.  On June 12,             
          1986, an additional $250,000 was wired into Ms. Ford’s bank                 
          account in California for the purpose of making home improvements           
          and buying home furnishings.  These facts show that each                    
          petitioner had control, and made frequent beneficial use, of the            
          income in the Canadian accounts based on which respondent                   
          determined the deficiency and additions to tax stated in his                
          notice of deficiency.  The Court concludes that respondent has              






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011