Ramsey v. Commissioner
This text of 1968 T.C. Memo. 68 (Ramsey v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Memorandum Findings of Raft and Opinion
DAWSON, Judge: Respondent determined the following income tax deficiencies and additions to tax:
| Addition to Tax Sec.6653(b), | ||
| Year | Deficiency | I.R.C. 1954 |
| 1961 | $1,016.89 | $ 508.45 |
| 1962 | 2,182.31 | 1,091.16 |
| 1963 | 3,073.64 | 1,536.82 |
Findings of Fact
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference and adopted as part of our findings.
Stewart Floyd Ramsey (herein called petitioner) and his former wife, Alice J. Ramsey, filed their joint Federal income tax returns for the years 1961, 1962 and 1963 with the district director of internal revenue at Des Moines, Iowa. Petitioner was a legal resident*233 of Muscatine, Iowa, at the time he filed his petition in this proceeding. 1
During the years 1961, 1962 and until December 28, 1963, the petitioner was employed by the American Air Filter Company, Inc., as a foreman of its plant in Moline, 359 Illinois. Early in 1961, he conspired with one John E. Schomer, a part-time junk hauler, to steal and sell scrap metal belonging to American Air Filter Company. Under their agreement the petitioner was to make the scrap metal available while Schomer was to haul it away and sell it. Upon demand, Schomer was to remit two-thirds of the sale proceeds to petitioner.
During the years 1961 through 1963, Schomer, with petitioner's knowledge, consent, and cooperation, hauled away and sold scrap metal belonging to American Air Filter Company. Schomer received the following proceeds in payment for scrap metal sold to the companies listed below:
| Purchaser | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 |
| Dalkoff Iron and Metal Co. | $5,208.40 | $ 3,379.39 | |
| Leslie Cooper Battery & Metal Co. | 7,112.54 | $ 9,651.27 | |
| Standard Metal Co | 4,281.57 | ||
| $5,208.40 | $10,491.93 | $13,932.84 |
*234 In November 1963, Hubert E. White, a private investigator, was retained by American Air Filter Company to ascertain why large amounts of the company's scrap metal were disappearing. His investigation implicated Schomer, who subsequently admitted collaboration with petitioner in the theft of scrap metal from American Air Filter Company.
On December 27, 1963, petitioner was asked to go to the office of Bernard J. Lavins, plant manager for American Air Filter Company. Present at the evening meeting were petitioner, White, Lavins, and Mark L. Marlaire, manufacturing manager and purchasing agent for the company. At that time the petitioner voluntarily admitted involvement in the stealing and sale of scrap metal belonging to American Air Filter Company. He also admitted that he had received cash representing his share of the proceeds.
On January 2, 1964, in the presence of White, D. G. Pflaum, a representative of the bonding company used by American Air Filter Company, and a court reporter, petitioner again voluntarily admitted his role in the conspiracy and stated that he had received two-thirds of the proceeds derived from the sale of scrap metal belonging to the company.
Ultimate*235 Findings
Petitioner received cash representing two-thirds of the proceeds derived from the sale of scrap metal stolen from American Air Filter Company during the years 1961, 1962, and 1963. His share of those proceeds amounted to $3,472.27 in 1961, $6,994.62 in 1962, and $9,288.56 in 1963.
We have here the factual question as to whether petitioner actually received his share of the proceeds derived from the sale of scrap metal belonging to his employer. While he admits his role in the conspiracy, he claims that Schomer never gave him any part of the proceeds but only receipts representing them. We reject this contention, as reflected by our ultimate findings of fact.
The burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish that he did not receive the amounts in question. To meet that burden, we have only his self-serving testimony.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1968 T.C. Memo. 68, 27 T.C.M. 358, 1968 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-commissioner-tax-1968.