Court Opinion

ID: 9461950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:28:33.877527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:20.235470
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge
(specially concurring):
I concur, but on the ground that the moneys received by McGee were, and always have been, income under the Rut-kin rationale. The facts show that McGee did not have rightful possession to money belonging to another that he diverted to his own use, the classic embezzlement reflected in Wilcox. The sums were paid to McGee for him to keep as his own. They constituted income under Rutkin whether or not Wilcox remained law. Therefore, I would not need James’ overruling of Wilcox to support an affirmance of the deficiency assessment in this case. There is serious doubt in my mind that sums received on facts identical to Wilcox should be taxed as income during the years that Wilcox was on the books holding such not to be income. But since, in my view, the facts here clearly demonstrate taxable income different from that protected by Wilcox, I agree that the tax court is due to be *1127affirmed on the deficiency income tax assessment and that the not clearly erroneous finding of fraud lifts the statute of limitations as a bar.