Mark N. Wright and Erica Y. Wright - Page 27

                                       - 27 -                                         
          income, but instead espoused inconsistent and implausible                   
          explanations.  The Court concludes that the $54,000 deposited by            
          petitioners into their Leadenhall bank account was unreported               
          income.  Accordingly, the Court sustains respondent’s                       
          determination on this issue.                                                
               B. Money and Finance Regulations                                       
               Regulations prescribe that transactions involving the                  
          transfer of more than $10,000 in monetary instruments at one time           
          from the United States to a place outside of the United States,             
          or vice versa, must be reported to the Secretary of the Treasury            
          by the individual involved.  See 31 U.S.C. sec. 5316 (2000); 31             
          C.F.R. sec. 103.23 and 103.27 (2000).  “Monetary instruments”               
          includes all negotiable instruments, such as checks.  31 C.F.R.             
          103.11(u) (2000).  Violation of the reporting requirements                  
          applicable to the exportation or importation of monetary                    
          instruments can result in criminal penalties consisting of fines,           
          imprisonment, or both.  See 31 U.S.C. sec. 5322 (2000).                     
               In response to questioning regarding the avoidance of such             
          reporting requirements, Mr. Wright could not explain why he would           
          issue six $9,000 checks (all drawn on the same Sun Trust bank               
          account) over a period of 3 consecutive days, all to be deposited           
          on the same day in the Bahamas, instead of one check for $54,000.           
          The Court concludes that Mr. Wright structured petitioners’                 
          deposit transaction so as to avoid the exportation of monetary              

Page:  Previous  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011