Reinaldo & Ernestina Moracen - Page 6




                                        - 5 -                                         
          and cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable requests.                  
          Petitioners therefore bear the burden of proof.                             
          I.   Unreported Income                                                      
               Section 61 provides that “gross income means all income from           
          whatever source derived”.  The Supreme Court has held that gross            
          income includes all “‘accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and           
          over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.’”4  James v.               
          United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961) (quoting Commissioner v.            
          Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)).  A taxpayer has              
          dominion and control over cash when he has the freedom to use it            
          at will, even though that freedom may be assailable by persons              
          with better title.  Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130, 137              
          (1952); Ianniello v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 165, 173 (1992).                 
               Petitioner does not dispute that she was a beneficiary of              
          Mrs. Knight’s annuity contract.  Nor does petitioner dispute that           
          a total of $415,266 was deposited into an account over which she            
          had signature authority.  Accordingly, petitioner had dominion              


               4 Sec. 101(a)(1) provides that gross income does not include           
          the proceeds of a life insurance contract paid by reason of the             
          death of the insured, subject to certain limitations.  See sec.             
          101(c), (f).  Respondent contends that the $53,885 of annuity               
          proceeds and the $1,136 of interest income are taxable.                     
          Petitioners do not dispute the taxability of these amounts;                 
          rather, petitioners believe they should not be liable for the tax           
          because they did not receive the benefit of the annuity proceeds            
          or interest income.  We therefore limit our discussion to whether           
          petitioners had dominion and control over the amounts at issue,             
          and whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction under sec.              
          165(a), discussed infra.                                                    






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007