DocketNumber： Docket No. 10791-76.
Citation Numbers： 43 T.C.M. 528, 1982 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 680, 1982 T.C. Memo. 73
Filed Date： 2/11/1982
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
FEATHERSTON, Sec. 6653(b) Year Deficiency Addition to Tax 1966 $ 6,426.49 $ 3,213.24 1967 4,348.49 2,174.24 1968 2,290.08 0 $ 13,065.06 $ 5,387.48
The issues for decision are:
1. Whether petitioners had unreported income in 1966, 1967, and 1968, and, if so, in what amounts;
2. Whether any part of the underpayments for 1966 and 1967 was due to fraud within the meaning of
3. Whether the statute of limitations bars assessment of the deficiencies for 1966, 1967, and 1968; and
4. Whether petitioner Betty Vella Launius is entitled to relief under the innocent spouse provisions of
*682 FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner Betty Vella Launius (Betty) and the deceased Joseph J. Vella (Joe) were married in 1965 and remained married until Joe's death in 1974. From 1965 to 1969, Joe and Betty resided at 10406 White Buck Trail, Rockford, Illinois. *683 referred to as Marie), two brothers, Anthony (Tony) and Patrick (Pat or Pasquale), and a sister, Janet Mahan (also known as Jeanette). From 1960 through approximately April 1968, Tony resided with his wife (Millie), his sister, and his mother at his mother's house. He moved from that residence following Millie's suicide. Joe's father, Gaspare Vella (or Jasper), died in 1950, leaving a very small estate estimated atless than $ 5,000. Maria Vella has not remarried. From 1962 through 1967, she paid no Federal income tax and none was assessed against her. There is no record of any Federal gift tax return for Maria Vella from 1962 through 1967.
In 1941, Joe was employed by the Barber Coleman Company, a manufacturing firm in Rockford, Illinois. In 1946, he worked for a gasoline station, also in Rockford. From 1952 through at least December 31, 1968, Joe was employed by Midwest Distributing Company (Midwest), Rockford, Illinois. During the years in issue, his duties consisted of servicing vending machines and coin-operated amusement devices, and specifically included collecting money from the machines and paying a percentage of the collected money to the owners or operators of*684 the establishments where the machines were located. Joe received as compensation from Midwest $ 7,105 in 1966, $ 7,555 in 1967, and $ 8,135 in 1968.
Betty, too, has worked most of her adult life. Since graduating from high school, she has held a number of jobs, mostly involving cashier-clerk or secretarial positions. From January to July 1965, Betty was employed by Sems Manufacturing Company, Rockford, Illinois, earning approximately $ 3,500. From July 1965 through 1968, Betty was not employed outside the home and was a housewife, tending to her and Joe's three children. During this period, however, Betty occasionally worked without pay at Avenue Drive-in Liquors, a liquor store run by Joe and Tony, waiting on customers and doing odd jobs.
In addition to his job with Midwest, Joe was involved in a number of businesses and investments. In 1957, he and Tony formed a partnership to operate Avenue Drive-In Liquors, a retail liquor store located in Rockford, Illinois. Joe withdrew from active participation in the partnership in 1961 prior to his divorce from Nellie; he resumed active participation in the on-going business in 1967. Throughout the partnership's operation, Tony's*685 wife, Millie, maintained the business books and records and purchased the retail merchandise. After Millie's death, Joe and Tony contracted on April 29, 1968, to sell, and subsequently did sell, the nonreal assets of the partnership.
Joe's other business ventures included a gas station in Cherry Valley, Illinois, purchased in 1959; Stadium Quick Dry Cleaning & Launderette, a laundry business in Rockford, Illinois, acquired in approximately 1962; "Dog & Suds," a drive-in restaurant in Arkansas purchased sometime after 1968; two A & W Drive-In fest food restaurants in Arkansas acquired in approximately 1968 and 1969; and two laundromats in Arkansas bought in approximately 1969.
In addition to these businesses, Joe invested in real estate, owning at various times and among other assets, interests in land in South Carolina with his brother Pat; three lots in the White Deer section of Deer Wood subdivision; lots in Arkansas with Betty; another lot in a subdivision in Illinois with Tony; and personal residences.
Some of these investments were financed through bank loans, while some were purchased outright. On September 15, 1963, Betty's aunt by marriage, Erma C. Griswold, loaned*686 Betty $ 3,000 evidenced by a personal note with interest accruing at 5 percent. No other loan was made by Erma C. Griswold to Betty or Joe from 1963 through 1968.
During the period March 2, 1960 to January 1, 1969, Joe invested in securities, most often through the securities brokerage firm of Hornblower & Weeks, Hemphill-Noyes and also purchased numerous savings bonds in the names of Kathleen Vella and Pamela and Randall Myers. He also obtained between 1964 and 1968 five certificates of deposit in the names of Joe and Kathleen Vella.
Joe maintained a checking account at the First National Bank and Trust Company of Rockford (First National) from April 6, 1963 through October 9, 1967. After adjusting downward for checks cleared the following year, the account had a balance of $ 59.39 on December 31, 1965, and $ 427.95 on December 31, 1966. Betty maintained a checking account from 1965 through February 1968 at the City National Bank and Trust Company, Rockford, Illinois. This account had yearend balances (after downward adjustments) of $ 146.32 in 1965, $ 235.47 in 1966, and $ 0 in 1967. Betty and Joe opened a joint account at First National on August 17, 1967, of which the*687 yearend balances (after downward adjustments) were $ 249.14 for 1967 and $ 242.90 for 1968.
Joe submitted a financial statement on or about May 26, 1966, to Norman Schultz, cashier, Alpine State Bank, Rockford, Illinois. In this statement, Joe listed his total assets as $ 106.200, his net worth as $ 88,417, and noted $9,000 as "Cash on hand and in Banks"; the total sum of $ 9,000 was attributed to a timed certificate of deposit.
On their joint Federal income tax returns, petitioners declared the following:
| 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | |
| Income from employment | $ 7,105 | $ 7,755 | $ 8,135 |
| Adjusted gross income | 9,245 | 12,650 | 16,999 |
| Taxable income | 1,039 | 3,940 | 8,549 |
Under the "net worth plus personal expenditure" method of income reconstruction, petitioners had adjusted gross income computed as follows: *688 1966 1967 1968 Expenditures $ 14,977.38 $ 16,662.38 $ 15,581.54 Increase in net worth 19,878.32 16,269.02 18,408.36 Adjusted gross income 34,412.70 29,757.40 22,533.40 Increase in adjusted gross income (A.G.I. less reported A.G.I.) 25,167.70 17,107.40 5,534.40
Sometime prior to August 6, 1968, an anonymous telephone caller informed the Internal Revenue Service in Chicago that Joe was "skimming" or diverting money from vending machines he serviced for Midwest; the caller also stated that Joe was engaged in business transactions with alleged crime syndicate figures.
On September 4, 1968, Internal Revenue Service Special Agent Michael J. Anderson (Anderson) interviewed both Joe and Betty at their residence. He also spoke with Betty by telephone on September 20, 1968. Another interview occurred on March 26, 1969, which Joe alone attended. At least two other interviews followed with Joe alone on April 1, 1969, and November 25, 1969.
On September 4, 1968, Joe informed Anderson that he possessed cash on hand not exceeding $ 1,000 at the end of each of the years 1963 through 1967. He stated that he kept a safety deposit box at First National*689 but that it contained no currency. He subsequently stated that he had kept up to $ 20,000 in the safety deposit box as savings accumulated since childhood, and that he used the money in the safety deposit box to buy securities and to make the $ 5,000 to $ 6,000 downpayment on property at 3104 South Main Street, Rockford. When the safety deposit box was inventoried on April 1, 1969, it contained approximately $ 5 in currency plus ten proof sets of coins at $ 3 a set. The register showed that Joe had entered the box on March 28, 1969.
At the November 25, 1969, interview, Joe stated that he had borrowed money from his mother, Maria Vella, and that he borrowed from her whenever he needed cash. Prior to this November interview, Joe had stated that he had no undisclosed loans. In his interviews with Anderson, Joe also failed, when asked about his assets, to disclose that he owned lots 1, 3 and 4 in the Deer Wood subdivision in Rockford, that he owned an interest in real estate in South Carolina, that he owned certificates of deposit, and that he owned an interest in Stadium Quick Dry Cleaning & Launderette.
Joe maintained a cash hoard which was stored in a metal box secreted in*690 a removable step leading to the attic in Maria Vella's house. The box contained a substantial amount of money, estimated by Tony as approximately $ 35,000, which did not decrease during the years in question. This accumulated cash was not treated by the Internal Revenue Service as an asset and accordingly does not figure at all in the net worth computations. The record does not show what happened to this cash.
In September 1969, three armed burglars broke into Joe's house in Rockford. They stated that they knew of the Internal Revenue Service investigation and therefore believed that Joe must have a substantial sum of cash stored in the house. Threatening rape and murder, the held the family hostage before finally releasing them unharmed. Sometime in 1969 after this incident, Joe and Betty moved to Rogers, Arkansas.
The Internal Revenue Service investigation culminated in Joe's indictment for Federal income tax evasion for 1966 and 1967. Prior to the trial of his case, on February 23, 1974, Joe died as a result of a sale-inflicted gunshot wound.
On or before February 3, 1975, petitioners' duly authorized representative executed a conditional consent form (Form 872) extending*691 the period of limitations upon assessment of income tax for the taxable year 1968 until April 15, 1976. A second consent form was executed extending the period of limitations until December 31, 1976. The validity of these consent forms depends upon the applicability of
OPINION
In the petition, petitioners challenge respondent's net worth determinations, deny the commission of fraud, plead the statute of limitations, and allege that Betty is not liable for any deficiencies. Petitioners, however, concern themselves mainly with sheltering Betty from liability for the deficiencies by relying on the innocent spouse provision of
1.
Under the net worth method, income is computed by determining a taxpayer's net worth (excess of assets at cost over liabilities) at the beginning and end of each year, and the difference between the two figures represents the increase in net worth. This increase is then adjusted by adding nondeductible expenditures, including living expenses, and by subtracting any nontaxable income items such as gifts, inheritances, loans, and the like.
*693 Petitioners specifically challenge the correctness of respondent's determination of his opening net worth alleging (1) that the starting "cash on hand" figure of $ 1,000 for 1966, 1967, and 1968 was too low and (2) that respondent neglected to include a $ 6,000 loan or gift to petitioners from Joe's mother, Maria Vella, in 1968.
A.
Petitioners presented no evidence showing that the cash on hand exceeded $ 1,000. Joe initially told Internal Revenue Service agents that his cash on hand never exceeded $ 1,000 at yearend from 1963 through 1967, and that the safety deposit box contained no currency. When voluntarily filling out a financial statement for Alpine State Bank on May 26, 1966, he listed cash on hand as $ 9,000, but most or all of this sum was attributable to a timed certificate of deposit, making actual cash not tied up in certificates or banks a minimal sum.
Evidence was presented by respondent, however, indicating two separate possible cash hoards, one located in a safety deposit box at the First National Bank and the second maintained under a step in Maria Vella's home. Only a trifling amount of money was found in the First National Bank safety*694 deposit box when it was inventoried. As for cash on hand in the cash hoard under the attic step, three witnesses (Tony, Pat, and Janet) testified that petitioner had a hoard of cash, which Tony testified that he counted at "Around $ 35,000" in 1965 (or "it could be--'64 or '66"). However, this source of funds simply was not taken into account in respondent's calculations of net worth. There is no evidence showing that funds from the box were used to purchase any of the assets upon which the net worth increase is based; indeed, the evidence indicates that the cash was constant or increasing in the years 1966 through 1968. We think that, as respondent argues, the box may have contained "additional unreported income which respondent has not charged to petitioners and which therefore * * * [is] not [an] issue in this case." We find no error in respondent's determinations as a result of his use of $ 1,000 as an approximate cash on hand figure as of December 31, 1965.
B.
Petitioners also alleged that respondent overlooked an item of $ 6,000 which Joe stated to the investigating agent that he had received in 1968 from his mother. Joe's statement*695 in this respect contradicted an earlier one to the effect that he had received no loans or gifts. There is no evidence to support such a transfer of funds to him. No loan documents were introduced in evidence; no gift tax returns were filed by Joe's mother; and respondent's agent found no pertinent financial transactions or accounts recorded in any bank in Rockford, Illinois. Moreover, Maria Vella was a widow of a man whose estate was estimated at less than $ 5,000; she filed tax returns reporting minimal income in 1962 and 1963 and no tax returns for 1964 through 1967. Three of her children, two of whom lived with her, testified that she was never employed outside the home and did not loan or give them any money in any of the years from 1965 through 1968.
We thus find that petitioners have shown no errors in respondent's computation of opening net worth, and, after a careful examination of the exhibits and briefs, we conclude that respondent's calculations and methods were fair and proper.
2.
Respondent has determined an addition to tax under
To establish fraud, respondent must show intentional wrongdoing with a specific purpose of evading a tax believed to be owing.
On consideration of the entire record, we hold that respondent has clearly and convincingly established that part of the underpayments in issue was due to fraud. Instances abound in which Joe attempted to mislead the Internal Revenue Service personnel or to conceal his true income for 1966 and 1967. In sum, (1) he made contradictory statements about his cash on hand; (2) he made inconsistent statements concerning loans from his mother; (3) he did not disclose the existence of the box in which he kept cash; (4) he stated on September 4, 1968, that he reported all his real estate holdings when he had not revealed the existence of three lots in the White Deer section of the Deer Wood subdivision; (5) he did not reveal the existence of certain certificates of deposit; and (6) he did not disclose his interest in Stadium Quick Dry Cleaning & Launderette.
*698 The petition challenges the fraud determination specifically only by alleging that respondent did not establish a likely source of income. While this allegation is properly an element establishing the validity of net worth computations, we will consider it here in the rather summary fashion it deserves.
Respondent has convincingly shown a likely source of the unreported income, namely, embezzlement from Joe's employer, Midwest. Showing a likely source does not require proof of actual receipt of income from the source, see
3.
Petitioners challenge the assessments for 1966, 1967, and 1968 as being barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent bears the burden of proof that the otherwise barred assessments fall within exceptions to the statute of limitations.
*702 4.
The most fully contested issue is the applicability of *703 Betty bears the burden of proving that she meets each of these conditions. A. Whether the conditions of the second requirement, We have a direct conflict in testimony concerning Betty's actual knowledge of Joe's cash board. Tony testified that Betty knew of the $ 35,000 in the cash box where Joe kept his embezzled funds. Betty denied such knowledge. While the testimony of both Tony and Betty contains inconsistencies, we find*704 Betty the more credible witness. Tony testified that he saw Betty with Joe on at least one occasion when Joe had opened the cash box containing approximately $ 35,000. Tony also attempted in his testimony to implicate Betty in the exchange of coins at the bank for bills, but there is no credible testimony that she was involved. We note that Norman Schultz, then a cashier for the Alpine State Bank, testified that We also take into account the fact that only Tony testified to seeing Betty with Joe when he opened the cash box. During the course of the Internal Revenue Service investigation of Joe's tax liabilities, Tony gave two affidavits, but neither one of them mentioned Betty's connection with the cash box. Based on our assessment of Tony's credibility, we accord his testimony little, if any, weight. We note, as respondent points out, that Betty's testimony is itself not free from inconsistency. In interviews with Internal Revenue Service agents she stated that she signed the 1966, 1967, and 1968 returns; at trial, however, she testified that she did not sign the 1966 and 1967 returns. *706 her aunt, Erma Griswold, when, in fact, the loan was made in 1963. *707 of the only direct evidence showing actual knowledge of the cash box, we find that Betty did not have actual knowledge of Joe's omission of income. The second inquiry under A detailed account of expenditures between 1966 and 1968 has been made. While these figures may not include all personal expenditures, only three could arguably qualify as "lavish" or "unusual." Petitioners acquired new furniture priced at $ 2,182 in 1966 and $ 2,254.58 in 1967, bought and maintained a horse for Kathleen Vella at a cost of over $ 1,000 over the 3 years, and took a vacation of undisclosed cost to Miami for a bowling tournament. We note that the furniture was not paid for in a lump sum, but was bought on "time" according to Betty's testimony, and the other two expenditures, while perhaps unusual for a family reporting gross income of $ 9,245 in 1966, $ 12,650 in 1967, and $ 16,999 in 1968, are not so lavish as to have necessarily aroused suspicion in Betty's mind. See The other two criteria, participation in business or bookkeeping and secrecy by guilty spouse, seem on balance to support Betty's innocent spouse contention. She did not participate in Joe's business ventures during the pertinent years *710 During the relevant years, Betty testified that Joe handled most of the family finances. She did maintain two separate checking accounts: one in her name from June 30, 1965 to September 29, 1967, of which the monthly balance never exceeded $ 1,000 (and was usually considerably less); the other a joint account opened August 17, 1967, in which the monthly balance did not exceed $ 600 in 1967. *711 been rather vague. She knew that he had cash at his mother's home and knew that he had other businesses, had securities, and would occasionally make money on the stock market. She testified, however, that she believed that Joe had accumulated savings throughout his life (he was about 44 when they married and had worked since childhood), and had acquired his investments prior to their marriage in 1965. New investments she believed to be heavily mortgaged. *712 respondent asserts that a reasonably prudent person in her position would have checked the 1968 return so as to have noted such a large omission. We disagree. We note that reported taxable income as reflected by the joint returns increased between 1967 and 1968 by approximately $ 4,000 ($ 16,999 compared with $ 12,650), an increase which would largely cover the gain on the laundromat sale. The increase is, to be sure, insufficient to cover another unreported capital gain of $ 8,729 in 1968, that derived from the sale of the nonreal assets of Avenue Drive-In Liquors. While Betty did not directly testify to knowing of this sale, we think she must have known because she sometimes worked in the store herself and must have noticed when Joe stopped working there. We do not think, however, that knowledge of the sale of these two businesses would have triggered suspicion in Betty's mind when she was accustomed to leaving all financial matters to her husband and their accountant, and where the 1968 return did evidence an increase of some 34.4 percent *713 ignorance of tax consequences will not shelter a spouse, We note that the innocent spouse statute is a remedial provision designed to counter the inequities which sometimes result from the imposition*714 of joint liability. See S. Rept. No. 91-1537 (1970), B. The third hurdle for obtaining Respondent argues that, because Betty inherited an estate totaling a net amount of $ 120,000 (after liabilities and expenses), she has benefited significantly from the omitted income. In making this argument, respondent is correct that an inheritance of property in later years may constitute a significant benefit within the meaning of *716 According to respondent's determination, Joe and Betty had an opening net worth of $ 95,309.76 as of December 31, 1965. Because the net distribution from Joe's estate was $ 120,000, we are dealing with a maximum benefit of $ 25,000 which might be attributable to the omissions, not a benefit of $ 120,000 as respondent appears to argue. Our findings, moreover, show for each year the amount of omitted income, the amount of personal expenditures, and the amount available for possible inclusion in Betty's inheritance from Joe's estate as follows: 1966 1967 1968 Omitted Income (Increase in A.G.I.) $ 25,167.70 $ 17,107.40 $ 5,534.40 Expenditures 14,977.38 16,662.38 15,581.54 Available for Inclusion $ 10,190.32 $ 445.02 $ (10,047.14)
Thus, the net amount of the omissions of income in the 3 years is only approximately $ 590. Even assuming this amount to be traceable to Joe's estate, it is hardly a "significant" sum, especially in comparison with the deficiency in income tax which respondent seeks to sustain.
Further, Joe's estate included an account receivable in the net amount of $ 49,940.99 from the sale of two laundromats in Rogers, *717 Arkansas, which were purchased in part with funds derived from the sale of the residence on White Buck Trail in Rockford, Illinois. Joe's estate also included a residence in Rogers, at a net value of $ 21,072 over and above a mortgage, which was bought with the proceeds of the sale of a home built in Rogers with funds derived from the sale of the White Buck Trail home. Significantly, Betty purchased the White Buck Trail house on May 23, 1965, prior to her marriage to Joe, for $ 25,000, assuming a mortgage of $ 18,254.40 and paying the remainder with the proceeds from the sale of her own house and with a loan from her family. Although Joe made payments on the mortgage and loan after their marriage, a substantial portion of Joe's estate at his death is thus traceable to Betty's premarital investment.
Respondent's argument, moreover, ignores any appreciation in the value of the assets which Joe and Betty had on hand as of December 31, 1965, and which was no doubt reflected in the amount received in their liquidation. The stock listed in the financial statement submitted to the Alpine State Bank on May 26, 1966, had a value as of that date of approximately $ 2,000 above its cost*718
To reflect the foregoing,
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as in effect during the tax years in issue, unless otherwise noted. All "Rules" references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. At some point between Mar. 1967 and Apr. 9, 1968, the area in which Joe and Betty lived was subdivided. As a result, the 10406 White Buck Trail address became 6224 White Buck Trail.↩
3. For 1966 and 1967, these findings are based on respondent's determinations in the notice of deficiency, which petitioner has the burden of proving erroneous.
4. The Supreme Court established the guidelines for use of the net worth method in
5.
(b) Fraud.--If any part of any underpayment * * * of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shaldl e added to the tax an amount equal to 50 percent of the underpayment. * * * In the case of a joint return under
6.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) False return.--In the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time.↩
7.
(e) Substantial Omission of Items.--Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c)--
(1) Income taxes.--In the case of any tax imposed by subtitle A--
(A) General rule.--If the taxpayer omits from gross income an amount properly includible therein which is in excess of 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the return, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such tax may be begun without assessment, at any time within 6 years after the return was filed. * * *↩
8.
(e) Spouse Relieved of Liability in Certain Cases.--
(1) In general. Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, if--
(A) a joint return has been made under this section for a taxable year and on such return there was omitted from gross income an amount properly includable therein which is attributable to one spouse and which is in excess of 25 percent of the amount of gross income stated in the return,
(B) the other spouse establishes that in signing the return he or she did not know of, and had no reason to know of, such omission, and
(C) taking into account whether or not the other spouse significantly benefited directly or indirectly from the items omitted from gross income and taking into account all other facts and circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other spouse liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable year attributable to such omission, then the other spouse shall be relieved of liability for tax (including interest, penalties, and other amounts) for such taxable year to the extent that such liability is attributable to such omission from gross income.↩
9. The absence of Betty's signature would not in this case affect her joint liability for 1966 and 1967, as there is no evidence suggesting that Joe and Betty did not intend for the return to be joint.
10. Respondent counts a third instance of inconsistent testimony relating to a loan that Betty said her now deceased mother, Mrs. P. H. Stevenson, made. Mrs. Stevenson, in a 1969 statement to Internal Revenue Agent Vernon Pixley (Pixley), denied making such a loan, though she refused to sign an affidavit so stating. Pixley's testimony as to Mrs. Stevenson's statement is hearsay. See
11. Betty did testify to working in the laundromats she and Joe acquired in Arkansas after their move there in 1969. During 1966-1968, however, she stated that she was a full-time housewife.↩
12. The excess expenditures, as set forth in the notice of deficiency, are as follows:
| 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | |
| Expenditures | $ 14,977.38 | $ 16,662.38 | $ 15,581.54 |
| Adjusted gross income | |||
| per return | 9,245,00 | 12,650.00 | 16,999.00 |
| Excess expenditures | $ 5,732.38 | $ 4,012.38 | $ (1,417.46) |
13. The balance grew in 1968 due to a $ 5,000 deposit. We do not see that awareness of such increased funds should have alerted Betty to any oddities at tax time since expenditures did not exceed reported income in 1968. ↩
14. We arrive at this figure by totaling the checks for each month of 1966, save one, as reported in Betty's City National Bank and Trust Co. of Rockford ledger. Totals for the month of June are inexplicably missing. We have used an estimate of $ 400, bringing the total somewhat over $ 5,000.↩
15. The record shows that this is true as to the investments owned at the time of Joe's death and reported on the estate tax return. Bank loan records indicate that Joe had also relied on loans in making at least some prior investments.↩
| 1968 reported adjusted gross income | $ 16,999 |
| 1967 reported adjusted gross income | 12,650 |
| $ 4,349 increase |
$ 4,349 = $ 12,650 X 34.38 percent (approximately).↩
17. S. Rept. No. 91-1537 (1970),
be received * * * several years after the year in which the omitted item should have been included in gross income. For example, if a spouse receives an inheritance of property * * *, and such receipt is traceable to items omitted from gross income by the other spouse in earlier years, that spouse will be considered to have benefitted from those items. * * *↩
18. The cost of the stock and the values as shown in the statement and the stipulations are as follows:
| Cost | 5/26/66 Value | |
| 150 shares Gen. Tel. & Elect. | $ 4,759.38 | $ 6,300 |
| 200 shares Dayco Corp. | 4,899.34 | 5,200 |
| 100 shares Pittsburgh Brewing Co. | 663.50 | 800 |
| 500 shares Inv. Life Ins. Co. | 2,000.00 | 2,500 |
Robert C. Hoffman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 298 F.2d 784 ( 1962 )
Elizabeth H. Bardwell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 318 F.2d 786 ( 1963 )
United States v. Frank Costello , 221 F.2d 668 ( 1955 )
United States v. Anthony J. Giacalone , 574 F.2d 328 ( 1978 )
Bettye A. Sanders v. United States , 31 A.L.R. Fed. 1 ( 1975 )
Costello v. United States , 76 S. Ct. 406 ( 1956 )
Howard B. Quinn and Charlotte J. Quinn v. Commissioner of ... , 42 A.L.R. Fed. 730 ( 1975 )
lucille-fuller-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-two-cases-estate-of , 313 F.2d 73 ( 1963 )
the-hicks-co-inc-etc-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-thomas , 470 F.2d 87 ( 1972 )
John Thomas Fairchild v. United States , 240 F.2d 944 ( 1957 )
Reis v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 142 F.2d 900 ( 1944 )
estate-of-josephine-mazzoni-deceased-peter-mazzoni-and-peter-mazzoni-v , 451 F.2d 197 ( 1971 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )
Jennie Allen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 514 F.2d 908 ( 1975 )