-252-
and Lisle, and from Travelers with the help of Lisle. There is
no direct evidence that Kanter agreed to share with Ballard and
Lisle any payments he might receive from Schaffel. However, a
number of factors, including the dinner meeting in New York,
Ballard’s immediate role in Prudential’s purchase of the IBM
building, Ballard’s and Lisle’s ability to influence Prudential’s
awards of construction contracts to Torcon and financing
transactions for Walters’s projects, Lisle’s direct role in
awarding Travelers financing for Walters’s projects, the details
concerning the Kanter/Schaffel fee dispute, and the divisions of
the Schaffel payments made to IRA and THC as discussed in the
flow-of-funds analysis below, provide compelling circumstantial
evidence that Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle agreed to share the
Schaffel payments. Consequently, for tax purposes, Kanter,
Ballard, and Lisle were the true earners of the fees that
Schaffel paid to IRA on Prudential transactions, and Kanter and
Lisle were the true earners of the fees that Schaffel paid to IRA
and THC on Travelers transactions.
Kanter used IRA as a repository for the Schaffel payments
and as a conduit to channel the payments to himself, Ballard, and
Lisle. Kanter, Ballard, and Lisle attempted to assign to IRA the
income they earned from Schaffel, and they failed to report their
shares of that income on their individual returns. As discussed
in the flow-of-funds analysis below, Kanter later transferred
Page: Previous 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011