Pascarelli v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
55 T.C. 1082 (1971)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Lillian Pascarelli (plaintiff) and Anthony DeAngelis had a close personal relationship for many years. Between 1959 and 1963, DeAngelis made substantial payments to Pascarelli, ranging from $32,650 to $64,000 per year, via multiple checks. In 1959, DeAngelis put $32,406 into a brokerage account in Pascarelli’s name. Also in 1959, DeAngelis moved into Pascarelli’s home, albeit in a basement apartment due to the sensibilities of Pascarelli’s teenage children. Other than keeping separate bedrooms, Pascarelli and DeAngelis held themselves out as husband and wife, with Pascarelli performing traditional household duties and often serving as hostess to DeAngelis’s business associates. In 1960, DeAngelis directly paid over $14,500 for improvements to Pascarelli’s home. With the funds transferred to her by DeAngelis, Pascarelli made several large expenditures, including: (1) a personal Cadillac, followed by a trade-in Cadillac of higher value, (2) large gifts and loans to her family and friends, (3) about $350 worth of clothing for DeAngelis per year, and (4) entertainment and gifts for DeAngelis’s business associates, ranging from $2,500 to $6,000 per year. Pascarelli kept no records that tracked the extent to which the spending was for DeAngelis’s benefit versus her own (the tax court estimated the amounts set forth above). The commissioner of internal revenue (defendant) issued notices of deficiency to Pascarelli seeking to tax the transferred funds either as income to Pascarelli or as gifts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simpson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.