Albert M. Graham and Martha A. Graham - Page 47

                                       - 47 -                                         
          Sec. 6663(b); Marretta v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-128;                
          Peyton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-146.                                
                    a.   Omission of Anis Partnership Income in 1995                  
               Petitioner contends that his failure to include in income              
          for 1995 amounts he received from the Anis partnership was not              
          due to fraud.  We disagree.                                                 
               Petitioner testified that he gave his interest in the Anis             
          partnership to his children in 1995 to divest himself of assets             
          that could be seized to satisfy his potential liability in the              
          Redlands litigation.  Petitioner testified that the $47,443 he              
          received from his children was a loan.  However, no documentary             
          evidence supports petitioner’s claim.  Petitioner’s books for               
          1995 do not show deposits of loan proceeds in the amount of                 
          $47,443 or during June 1995, when petitioners’ children allegedly           
          lent him the money.  Petitioner does not explain why his children           
          received $47,443.51 in cash, converted it to cashier’s checks,              
          and then purportedly lent it to petitioner.  We believe                     
          petitioner tried to conceal his receipt of attorney’s fees from             
          the Anis partnership by diverting them through his children.                
               Petitioner testified that he did not report the amounts that           
          petitioners’ children received from the Anis partnership because            
          Lewellen told him it was not income to him.  Petitioner’s claim             
          is unconvincing in view of Lewellen’s credible testimony that               
          petitioner did not tell him that petitioner or his children had             






Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011