DocketNumber: Docket No. 4778-95.
Judges: GALE
Filed Date: 1/28/1997
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GALE, Additions to Tax Sec. 6653 Sec. 6653 Sec. 6653 Sec. 6653 Sec. Year Deficiency (b)(1) (b)(2) (b)(1)(A) (b)(1)(B) 6654 1982 $ 3,323 $ 1,662 ------- -- $ 85 1983 4,336 2,168 ------- -- 266 1984 1,291 646 -- 52 1985 3,944 1,972 -- 222 1986 4,089 ------- ------- $ 3,067 2 198 1987 3,685 --- 2,764 2 200 1988 2,427 1,820 ------- ------- -- 153
Respondent moves 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*50 for summary judgment as to: (1) The deficiencies and the additions to tax under
Petitioner filed a timely petition stating, inter alia, that "Without a grant of immunity, Petitioner is prevented from submitting financial information sufficient to refute the taxable income determined by Respondent lest it be used against him in a civil or criminal matter". The petition then discusses the
Respondent1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*51 filed a timely answer, affirmatively alleging fraud for all of the years at issue. Petitioner did not file a reply to respondent's answer, but since respondent did not file a motion pursuant to Rule 37(c), the affirmative allegations of fraud in the answer are deemed denied.
Respondent sought to have petitioner enter into stipulations of fact and also served on petitioner requests for admission with respect to various matters raised in this case. Petitioner in response refused to stipulate any matter or to specifically address any of the requested admissions.
In support of his refusal either to stipulate or to admit, petitioner took the position that his Tax Court petition is "null and void" because respondent lacks assessment and collection authority, in that such authority has been transferred from the Internal Revenue Service to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF).
The Court subsequently ordered petitioner to show cause why respondent's proposed stipulations should not be accepted as established, directing petitioner to specifically address the factual matters raised in the proposed stipulations (show cause order). Petitioner declined to comply with the show 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*52 cause order, repeating the argument that respondent's assessment and collection authority had been transferred to the BATF.
Respondent also filed a motion to review the sufficiency of petitioner's answers to requested admissions (motion to review). Petitioner's response to the motion to review again referenced the BATF argument and further stated that "Respondent's Notice of Deficiency did not list the statute and implementing regulations for its authority" to assess and collect taxes if a Tax Court petition was not filed.
By subsequent order, this Court advised petitioner that his grounds for refusing to stipulate or admit lacked merit and further directed him to file supplemental responses to the show cause order and the motion to review that specifically addressed each factual matter raised by respondent. Petitioner was further advised that any failure to respond as directed could result in matters being deemed stipulated or admitted. The Court also set a hearing to review petitioner's responses at the commencement of the trial calendar in Houston, Texas, on June 10, 1996.
Petitioner's supplemental responses failed to specifically address any matter in the proposed stipulations1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*53 or the requests for admission. Instead, in terms substantially identical to those previously rejected by the Court, petitioner repeated the BATF argument, and expanded on the argument regarding the lack of implementing regulations, claiming that title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, but not title 26 thereof, contains implementing regulations for Internal Revenue Code sections concerned with the assessment and collection of taxes. Thus, petitioner concluded, the absence of regulations in title 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations precludes respondent from enforcing such Internal Revenue Code sections.
At the June 10, 1996, hearing to review petitioner's responses, petitioner renewed his argument regarding the lack of implementing regulations and orally moved for dismissal. In response to the Court's request that he provide specific evidence regarding the matters raised by respondent, petitioner refused, stating: I stand on the documentation that I have provided this Court that there are no implementing Federal regulations in title 26 for enforcement actions against me. I stand on that. That is all I have to say to this Court.
This case was recalled 2 days later. Petitioner's oral motion to dismiss was denied. Petitioner's original and supplemental responses to the show cause order were determined to be unresponsive and, thus, not in compliance with that order and Rule 91. Consequently, respondent's proposed stipulations of fact were accepted as established for purposes of this case. Rule 91(f);
The facts deemed admitted and established may be summarized as follows. Petitioner resided in Kingwood, Texas, at the time the petition was filed in this case. Petitioner was married and living with his wife in Texas during the years at issue, and Texas is a community property State. 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*57 Petitioner was employed as an accountant from 1982 to 1988 by the same company, currently known as British Petroleum Exploration Co. Lester Sooner Sohio Sohio/Standard Goodson Yurika Federal Federal Year Oil Pontiac Foods Savings Credit Union 1982 $ 37,119.00 ---------- ---------- ------- --- 1983 38,705.00 ---------- ---------- $ 54.00 --- 1984 16,438.32 $ 1,618.93 $ 2,966.00 ------- --- 1985 31,722.21 1,953.46 380.69 7.51 --- 1986 51,898.12 ---------- 52.30 9.72 --- 1987 52,599.72 ---------- 45.15 ------- $ 3 1988 43,925.08 ---------- 38.40 ------- ---
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*56 Petitioner's community share of the foregoing amounts is one- half. Petitioner received $ 6,201 in distributions from Sohio Employees Investment Plan, of which his community share is $ 3,100.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, * * * admissions, and any other acceptable materials * * * show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*58 a matter of law."
However, the party opposing summary judgment may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings but "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
The suggestion in the petitioner that petitioner was "prevented" from providing financial information to refute respondent's deficiency determination on Petitioner * * * has at various times offered to file 1040s upon receipt of a proper grant of immunity. Without a grant of immunity, Petitioner is prevented from submitting financial information sufficient to refute the taxable income determined by Respondent lest it be used against him in a civil or criminal matter. Petitioner does not need immunity because he believes he has committed a criminal act -- quite the contrary. Petitioner's fear of providing the information without immunity is real and substantial. Petitioner recently was released after serving time in a Federal prison for alleged income tax offences [sic]. At his trial, a 1040, he had filed about 1980, was used by the Government as an exhibit to the jury and was instrumental1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*60 in a jury conviction. * * *
Treasury Department Order 221, 2. The Director of the BATF shall perform the functions, exercise the powers, and carry out the duties of the Secretary of the Treasury in the administration and enforcement of the following provisions of law: (a) Chapters 51 Distilled Spirits, Wines and Beer, 52 Tobacco, Cigars, Cigarettes, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, and 53 Machine Guns and Certain Other Firearms of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and section 7652 and 7653 of such Code insofar as they relate to the commodities subject to tax under such chapters; (b) Chapters 61 to 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, insofar as they relate to activities administered and enforced with respect to chapters 51, 52, and 53 * * *
The plain language of Treasury Department Order 221,
Respondent's determinations of income tax deficiencies in the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and it is petitioner's burden to prove that they are incorrect. Rule 142(a);
Throughout these proceedings, petitioner has refused to offer any evidence directed towards the deficiencies or the
On the basis of this record, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the deficiencies and additions to tax under
In order to prevail on the proposed additions to tax for fraud, respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that an underpayment exists in the years at issue and that some portion of the underpayment is due to fraud. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b);
Respondent may meet her burden of proving liability for the additions to tax for fraud by deemed admissions and facts deemed stipulated.
As to evidence that some portion of the underpayment for the tax years 1985, 1986, and 1987 is due to fraud, a conviction for willful attempt to evade or defeat income taxes under
It has been stipulated that petitioner was convicted under
As to evidence that some portion of the underpayment for the tax years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1988 is due to fraud, the Commissioner meets her burden of proof if it is shown that the taxpayer intended to evade taxes known to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes.
When fraud is alleged1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*70 for multiple tax years, the Commissioner must meet her burden of proof for each tax year.
The taxpayer's entire course of conduct may establish fraud.
Although failure to file tax returns, even over an extended period, may not per se establish fraud, it is persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud.
Petitioner is deemed to have admitted that he submitted Forms W-4 for tax years 1984 and 1988 to his employer claiming that he was exempt from Federal withholding. 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*72 are not part of the record, the Court takes judicial notice of the 1984 and 1988 Forms W-4 and relevant instructions (as published by the U.S. Government Printing Office) for purposes of evaluating whether petitioner's filing was false. See
The 1984 and 1988 Forms W-4 required taxpayers to certify under penalties of perjury that they were entitled to claim exempt status. In order to qualify for exempt status, the Forms W-4 provide that the following two requirements must be met: a Last year I did not owe any Federal income tax and had a right to a full refund of ALL income tax withheld, AND 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*73 b This year I do not expect to owe any Federal income tax and expect to have a right to a full refund of ALL income tax withheld. * * *
Petitioner is deemed to have admitted that he received substantial taxable income from various sources during the years relevant to the Forms W-4 (1983, 1984, 1987, and 1988) but failed to file Federal income tax returns for each of these years. Thus, petitioner's deemed admissions unequivocally discredit his sworn certification that he satisfied both requirements to qualify for exempt status. Moreover, petitioner is deemed to have admitted that he was employed as an accountant by British Petroleum Exploration Co. from 1983 to 1988. It is implausible that petitioner's experience as an accountant would lead him to conclude that he satisfied both requirements to qualify for exempt status. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner's Forms W-4 for 1984 and 1988 were fraudulent.
Consequently, for 1984 and 1988, petitioner's failure to file Federal income tax returns, submission of fraudulent Forms W-4, and experience as an accountant, coupled with his failure to report substantial amounts of income, present clear and convincing evidence of fraud. 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 46">*74 Thus, there is no genuine issue as to a material fact, and a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. Respondent's motion for summary judgment as to the additions to tax for fraud for 1984 and 1988 will be granted.
However, the tax years 1982 and 1983 merit a different result. There is no evidence of a criminal conviction under
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all chapter and section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years at issue.↩
1. In the alternative to the additions to tax for fraud,respondent determined additions to tax under
2. 50 percent of the interest payable under
2. Respondent's motion for summary judgment does not address the
3.
4. The company was called Sohio Petroleum Co. from 1982-86 and was called Standard Oil Production Co. from 1986-88.↩
5. Although the stipulation of facts states that petitioner purchased food products from Yurika Foods Corp. during 1983, the stipulation elsewhere indicates that there was no income from activities with respect to Yurika Foods Corp. in that year.↩
6. The notice of deficiency specifies that petitioner received the Sohio Employees Investment Plan distributions in 1983.↩
7. Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $ 100,000 * * * or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.↩
8. Petitioner's
9. A review of petitioner's filings in this case reveals one additional argument, namely, certain alleged defects in a levy action against petitioner, including what petitioner argues are false or misleading statements in Form 668-W, Notice of Levy on Wages, Salary and Other Income. The short answer to petitioner's argument is that it has no application in this case. The Form 668-W relates to tax years 1980 and 1981. Neither of these tax years is before the Court, and no issue regarding a levy has been raised in these proceedings.↩
10. The parallel table of authorities is merely an ancillary finding device included in the Code of Federal Regulations.↩
11. Petitioner cites the following
12. Contrary to petitioner's claims, the absence of implementing regulations would not, generally speaking, preclude the Commissioner from enforcing sections of the Internal Revenue Code. Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code generally do not require implementing regulations as a prerequisite to enforcement. See
Petitioner's reliance on
Petitioner quotes, out of context, the observation in
Petitioner quotes from we think it important to note that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone.
However, the Supreme Court was therein describing the particular statutory scheme of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, under which regulations were required to be promulgated before the penalties in the statute could attach. The situation in the instant case is clearly distinguishable. As discussed
13. Petitioner is also deemed to have admitted filing Forms W-4 claiming exemption for 1985, 1986, and 1987. Because we are granting respondent's motion for summary judgment for 1985, 1986, and 1987 as to fraud based on petitioner's conviction under
Coninck v. Commissioner ( 1993 )
Smith v. Commissioner ( 1988 )
Conoco, Inc. v. Commissioner ( 1995 )
United States v. Donald D. Johnson ( 1978 )
laurie-w-tomlinson-district-director-of-internal-revenue-for-the-district ( 1964 )
Dodd v. United States ( 1963 )
Spies v. United States ( 1943 )
United States v. Sullivan ( 1927 )
Beaver v. Commissioner ( 1970 )
Espinoza v. Commissioner ( 1982 )
Stephenson v. Commissioner ( 1982 )
Gajewski v. Commissioner ( 1976 )
Donald G. Smith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1991 )
Sundstrand Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1994 )
Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 )