DocketNumber: Docket No. 17531-84.
Citation Numbers: 53 T.C.M. 405, 1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 144, 1987 T.C. Memo. 149
Filed Date: 3/19/1987
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
TANNENWALD,
Additions to Tax | |||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6653(b) Sec. 6654 | |
1977 | $3,517.77 | $1,758.89 | $125.27 |
1978 | 3,923.24 | 1,961.62 | 125.31 |
1979 | 18,617.98 | 9,308.99 | 775.61 |
1980 | 3,169.37 | 1,584.69 | 202.17 |
1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 144">*145 The issues are whether, with respect to each of the taxable years at issue, petitioner (1) had unreported taxable income, (2) is liable for underpayment of estimated tax under section 6654, and (3) is liable for an addition to tax for fraud under section 6653(b). As a matter of convenience, we have combined our findings of fact and opinion.
Petitioner resided in Whitefish, Montana at the time the petition herein was filed.
During the years specified, petitioner was a self-employed plumber and had at least the following amounts of gross receipts from his plumbing business:
YEAR | TOTAL GROSS RECEIPTS |
1977 | $53,545.85 |
1978 | 46,265.86 |
1979 | 97,212.46 |
1980 | 47,024.34 |
Petitioner had the following deductible expenses against the foregoing gross receipts: 1977 $8,455.69 1978 320.16 1979 6,072.46 1980 5,077.45
1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 144">*146 During each of the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 petitioner had at least $900 gross rental receipts and incurred rental expenses of not more than $882.38, $920.95, $952.51 and $942.89 in these years, respectively.
Petitioner filed a timely Federal income tax return (Form 1040) for the taxable year 1973 showing a tax due of $2,158. In September, 1975 petitioner filed an amended return for 1973 (Form 1040X) showing a reduced tax due.
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return for 1974. For 1975 and 1976, he filed Forms 1040 which constituted so-called "Porth" returns and were therefore not valid returns.
During the years at issue, petitioner paid the people who worked for him only with currency.
We turn to the issue of whether petitioner should be held liable for the additions to tax for fraud under section 6653(b). The burden is on respondent to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that some part of the underpayment is due to fraud and that petitioner had a specific purpose to evade a tax believed by him to be due and owing.
We start our analysis with a recognition that the failure to file valid Federal income tax returns, standing alone, will not satisfy respondent's burden of proof.
There are several other elements of fraud present in the instant case. First, petitioner admitted that he received sums in excess of deductible expenses, and such admissions, even though in effect compelled under Rule 91(f),
Another element of fraud stems from the fact that petitioner maintained only fragmentary records. Failure to maintain adequate records is a badge of fraud.
Concealment of assets or covering up sources of income, handling of one's affairs to avoid making the records usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or conceal. [
See also
1987 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 144">*154 The long and short of the matter is that, based on the record before us and our findings and conclusions derived therefrom, we are satisfied that respondent has met his burden of proof as to the additions to tax under section 6653(b). Decision will be entered for the respondent.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect during the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. These are amounts allowed by respondent in his deficiency notice. Petitioner did not object to these amounts but indicated, at a hearing to determine the extent to which respondent's proposed stipulation of facts should be accepted, that he had additional expenses. However, he never pursued the matter further at trial although the Court specifically invited him to do so. See note 4,
3. Petitioner testified that in some cases he used cashier's checks; we conclude that, in the context of this case, such checks should be treated as the equivalent of cash.↩
4. Although technically not in response to a motion under Rule 91(f), the Court did conduct a pre-trial hearing with respect to petitioner's refusal to stipulate as required by Rule 91 and the deemed admissions were the result. We again note that petitioner made some vague claims at this hearing about additional deductions, which he never pursued further at trial. See note 2,
5. See also
6. We acknowledge that our findings as to petitioner's efforts at concealment are based, at least in part, on the testimony of Peter Tiffany ("Tiffany") who occupied an independent contractor/employee relationship to petitioner and that, in some respects, his testimony was confusing and even inconsistent. But our evaluation reflects the fact that we saw Tiffany and heard him, as well as petitioner, testify, and that, even allowing for possible shortcomings in Tiffany's testimony, it provides a sufficient foundation for the conclusion we have reached.↩
7. Petitioner mentions on brief that he was acquitted of the charge of wilful failure to file returns for 1977, 1978, and 1979 and that this negates respondent's assertion of fraud herein. Aside from the fact that petitioner's assertion is not supported by any evidence of record, the standard for determining guilt in a criminal case is a higher one than in a civil fraud case, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal is not proof that the jury agreed with petitioner's view of the situation. Rather, an acquittal indicates that the jury had reservations that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard had been satisfied.
William H. And Avilda L. Edwards v. Commissioner of ... , 680 F.2d 1268 ( 1982 )
United States v. Rylander , 103 S. Ct. 1548 ( 1983 )
Mary Ruark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 449 F.2d 311 ( 1971 )
Leo Elwert v. United States , 231 F.2d 928 ( 1956 )
United States v. Abe Bender , 218 F.2d 869 ( 1955 )
United States v. Kenneth v. Stillhammer and Laverne B. ... , 706 F.2d 1072 ( 1983 )
Norman D. Carter and Cecilia P. Carter v. Commissioner of ... , 784 F.2d 1006 ( 1986 )
Spies v. United States , 63 S. Ct. 364 ( 1943 )
Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 796 F.2d 303 ( 1986 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )
American Tobacco Co. v. United States , 66 S. Ct. 1125 ( 1946 )
United States v. Arthur J. Porth , 426 F.2d 519 ( 1970 )
Earl J. Lollis and Ruth Lollis v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 595 F.2d 1189 ( 1979 )
Clarence W. Steinbrecher and Jeannette D. Steinbrecher v. ... , 712 F.2d 195 ( 1983 )
United States v. Marvin Morris Wangrud , 533 F.2d 495 ( 1976 )