DocketNumber: Docket No. 301-78.
Filed Date: 9/10/1979
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/21/2020
*164 P filed a petition containing no allegation of specific error in the deficiency and additions to tax determined by the Commissioner. In his answer, the Commissioner alleged that a part of the underpayment of tax for each of the years in issue was due to fraud and the facts supporting such allegation. In his reply, P failed to deny any of the alleged facts.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SIMPSON, Additions to Tax Sec. 6653(b) Sec. 6654 Year Deficiency I.R.C. 1954 I.R.C. 1954 1970 $1,414.50 $ 707.25 $ 6.18 1971 1,756.00 878.00 5.57 1972 1,909.83 954.92 36.25 1973 2,350.08 1,175.04 75.20 1974 801.50 400.75 25.65 1975 43.44 21.72 1976 720.33 360.16 23.04
The petitioner timely filed a petition, wherein he stated that he "knows the respondent-accuser erred in arriving at every one of his Dollar ( $ ) figures." He alleged that the determination was erroneous because the Commissioner was guilty of "fraud," "extortion," "harassment," and "willful oppression." As "The facts upon which the petitioner-victim relies," the petitioner set forth references to and quotations from the United States Constitution, the
In his answer, the Commissioner generally denied most of the allegations made in the petition and affirmatively alleged that a part of the underpayment for each of the years at issue was due to fraud and the facts supporting such allegation of fraud.
The petitioner timely filed a reply, in which he did not respond to the affirmative allegations of fraud contained in the answer. Rather, such reply merely stated*167 that the answer was a "
Thereafter, the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, in which he takes the position that the pleadings fail to raise a factual issue as to the deficiency and the additions to tax under
At the hearing on the Commissioner's motion, the Court repeatedly urged the petitioner to deal with the merits of the deficiency and additions determined*168 by the Commissioner, rather than rely on the constitutional objections made by him which have all been repeatedly considered and rejected by the courts. When the petitioner requested an opportunity to amend his reply so as to deal with the merits of the controversy, the Court granted him additional time to file an amended reply. However, he failed to file any amendment to his reply; instead, he filed a motion for extension of the time to amend the reply and a motion to withdraw his petition and dismiss the case.
Before dealing with the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, we will dispose of the petitioner's motions. He was given ample time in which to file an amendment to his reply, and therefore, his motion for an extension of such time is without merit and will be denied. His motion to withdraw the petition and dismiss the case will also be denied. It is well settled that once a timely petition is filed with this Court and the assessment procedures are suspended, the Court retains jurisdiction of the case until it is ultimately decided.
Now we turn to a consideration of the Commissioner's motion.
Where a reply is filed, every affirmative allegation set out in the answer and not expressly admitted or denied in the reply, shall be deemed to be admitted. * * *
Since the petitioner filed a reply, and since such reply did not deny any of the affirmative allegations set forth in the answer, the facts so alleged are deemed admitted. tax returns for the years 1970 and 1971 in violation of section 7203 and for willfully supplying a false or fraudulent withholding exemption certificate to his employer in 1972. On April 3, 1975, the petitioner was convicted on the charges set forth in the indictment. On March 5, 1976, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the petitioner's conviction (
The first issue to be considered*170 is whether on the pleadings, the deficiency determined by the Commissioner is to be sustained. The Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumptively correct, and if the petitioner is to prevail, he must allege and prove such determination is erroneous.
Here, the only allegations of error in the petition deal with the alleged misconduct on the part of the Commissioner and alleged violation of the petitioner's constitutional rights. These allegations raise no factual issue which would enable the petitioner to prevail. Such constitutional objections have been repeatedly rejected by the courts. See, e.g.,
The second issue is whether on the pleadings, the Commissioner has shown that some part of the underpayment of tax for each of the years at issue was due to fraud within the meaning of
(b) Fraud. -- If any part of any underpayment * * * of tax required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 50 percent of the underpayment.* * *
The Commissioner has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that some part of the underpayment for each year was due to fraud.
The presence or absence of fraud is a factual question to be determined by an examination of the entire record.
For each of the years at issue, the petitioner received significant amounts of income, and he failed to file a return and report such income for any of such years. We know that he knowingly attempted to avoid paying his tax for 1969, and from such fact, we may infer that his failure to file returns and pay taxes for 1970 through 1976 was not accidental but was deliberate. A pattern of failure to report substantial amounts of income over a period of years is, in and of itself, evidence of fraud.
The final issue is whether on the pleadings, the petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under
In summary, it is clear that on the pleadings, the Commissioner is entitled to a judgment for the deficiency and for the additions to tax under
Emma R. Dorl v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1974 )
Abe B. And Leona M. Adler v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1970 )
Charles Oran Mensik and Mary Mensik v. Commissioner of ... ( 1964 )
Bolen Webb and Cornelia Webb v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1968 )
estate-of-hutchen-upshaw-deceased-ardenia-upshaw-administratrix-and ( 1969 )
Chris D. Stoltzfus and Irma H. Stoltzfus v. United States ( 1968 )