- 8 -
While the record is unclear on this point, intervenor
alleges that respondent determined the unreported gross receipts
by analyzing deposits made into the Bank One account. Intervenor
alleges that the Bank One account was petitioner’s “secret bank
account” and that, because only petitioner and petitioner’s son
had signatory authority over the account, he “did not know and
did not have reason to known [sic] of the unreported income of
her secret bank account.” Intervenor’s allegations are against
the manifest weight of the evidence.6
Although petitioner provided services for the businesses
and opened the Bank One account in her and her son’s name, it is
clear that intervenor maintained control of the businesses and
the Bank One account at all times. Intervenor was extremely
abusive and demanded to have absolute authority over all
financial aspects of the marriage and the businesses. He did not
allow petitioner to review business records, nor did he allow her
to review the tax returns for the years in issue. This pattern
5(...continued)
identified petitioner as “homemaker”, intervenor concedes that
any deficiencies arising from the disallowed Schedule C expenses
and the increased self-employment taxes are allocable to him.
6 It is worth noting that, while intervenor appeared at
trial, he did not testify, nor did he offer any evidence outside
of the stipulation of facts. Instead, in his opening brief,
which he titled “Intervenor’s Brief and Affidavit”, intervenor
attempted to testify. Pursuant to Rule 143(b), statements in
briefs do not constitute evidence, and we give such statements
made by intervenor no consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007