DocketNumber: No. 11735-00
Judges: "Jacobs, Julian I."
Filed Date: 12/3/2003
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*333 Decision was entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal income taxes, as well as fraud penalties pursuant to
1992
1993
1994
After concessions, the issues to be decided2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*334 are:
(1) Whether petitioner is liable for the fraud penalty for each of the years at issue;
(2) whether the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and/or double jeopardy bar the assessment of deficiencies and penalties for all years at issue in an amount greater than $ 61,700; and
(3) whether the period for assessing tax for the years at issue has expired.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Austin, Minnesota, on the date the petition in this case was filed. During the years at issue, petitioner farmed approximately 700 to 800 acres. He grew soybeans, corn, and other crops. These crops were then sold to various grain elevator companies and canneries in the area. In addition, petitioner worked between 25 and 30 hours a week as a theater manager/projectionist.
Erik Newhouse of Fast Income Tax and Computer Svc. prepared petitioner's Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1991-94. On his returns, petitioner reported his adjusted gross income as follows:
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*335 1991
____ ____ ____ ____
Wages, salaries, tips, etc. $ 7,692 $ 8,294 $ 7,267 $ 6,078
Interest 822 233 233 3,258
Dividends 18 22 28 32
Capital gain (loss) (143) (143) (143) --
Other gains (losses) -- 3,729 57 63
Rents, royalties, etc. 11,056 11,056 11,183 13,998
Farm income (loss) (14,988) (10,051) (6,766) (6,073)
Net operating loss c/o (16,853) (15,653) (5,970) --
Adjustments to income -- -- -- --
Adjusted gross income (12,396) (2,513) (5,889) 17,356
On the Schedules F, Profit or Loss From Farming, of his returns, petitioner reported net farm losses for 1991-94 as follows.
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*336 1991
____ ____ ____ ____
Income
Sales of products raised $ 90,887 $ 121,038 $ 87,642 $ 55,182
Cooperative distributions 22 -- 69 --
Agricultural program
payments 13,310 14,554 28,317 44,927
Crop insurance proceeds 14,123 -- -- --
Other income 288 281 377 458
_________ _________ _________ _________
Gross income 118,630 135,873 116,405 100,567
Expenses (133,618) (145,924) (123,171) (106,640)
_________ _________ _________ _________
Net farm profit (loss) (14,988) (10,051) (6,766) (6,073)
In April 1998, petitioner was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on four counts2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*337 of filing false tax returns in violation of
Petitioner was tried and convicted on all four counts. His conviction was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
With respect to the fine, the judgment specified that interest on the2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*338 fine was waived because the court determined that petitioner did not have the ability to pay interest. The judgment did not waive interest with respect to the restitution petitioner was ordered to make to the IRS. Petitioner paid the fine and restitution on or before September 14, 1999.
On August 17, 2000, respondent sent to petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency, determining deficiencies in Federal income tax and fraud penalties for 1991-94. The deficiencies were based in large part upon respondent's reconstruction of petitioner's income using the bank deposits method. Respondent determined that petitioner received unreported income from crop sales (which he deposited into his checking account at Farmer's State Bank). Specifically, respondent determined that petitioner's tax liability for 1991-94 should be increased as follows:
Adjustment 1991 1992 1993 1994
__________ ____ ____ ____ ____
NOL carryover $ 16,853 $ 15,653 $ 5,970 --
Patronage dividend -- -- 162 --
Schedule2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*339 F
Rent expense -- 10,000 -- $ 6,912
Sales of grain 75,800 42,714 26,127 68,713
Seed expense -- 10,000 -- --
Taxes paid -- -- -- 2,241
Self employment (3,648) (3,632) (1,380) (4,342)
Total 89,005 74,735 30,879 73,524
Increase in tax 22,527 21,154 5,096 30,233
On November 16, 2000, petitioner filed a petition with this Court, disputing the full amount of the deficiencies and penalties. Petitioner now concedes that, on his 1991-94 returns, he omitted grain sale receipts of $ 75,799 in 1991, $ 39,900 in 1992, $ 24,481 in 1993, and $ 68,713 in 1994. Respondent concedes all other adjustments to Schedule F. Respondent also concedes the net operating losses for 1991-93, as well as the patronage dividend in 1993.
OPINION
Issue 1. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Fraud Penalty Pursuant to
2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*340 Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for the fraud penalty under
Respondent bears the burden of proving the applicability of the civil fraud penalty by clear and convincing evidence.
1. Underpayments of Tax
An underpayment of tax will exist where unreported gross receipts2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*341 exceed the costs of goods sold and deductible expenses. Where the Commissioner provides clear proof of unreported receipts, the burden of coming forward with offsetting costs or expenses generally shifts to the taxpayer.
Petitioner has stipulated that he omitted from his Federal tax returns grain sale receipts of $ 75,799 in 1991, $ 39,900 in 1992, $ 24,481 in 1993, and $ 68,713 in 1994. Furthermore, petitioner's conviction under
Petitioner does not assert, and has not provided any evidence, that the cost of goods sold for any of the years at issue exceeds the cost of goods sold as reported on his 1991-94 returns. Thus, respondent has carried the burden of establishing underpayments by clear and convincing evidence.
2. Fraudulent Intent
Respondent must also prove fraudulent intent. This2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*342 burden is met if it is shown that petitioner intended to evade taxes known to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes.
Conduct that may indicate fraudulent intent, commonly referred to as "badges of fraud", includes, but is not limited to: (1) Understating income; (2) maintaining inadequate records; (3) giving implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior, (4) concealing income or assets, (5) failing to cooperate with tax authorities, (6) engaging in illegal activities, (7) providing incomplete or misleading information to one's tax preparer, (8) lack of credibility of the taxpayer's2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*343 testimony, (9) filing false documents, including filing false income tax returns, (10) failing to file tax returns, and (11) dealing in cash.
The following badges of fraud are present in this case: (1) Substantially understating income for several years, (2) providing incomplete or misleading information to his tax preparer,2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*344 and (3) being convicted of filing false returns under
Over a 4-year period, petitioner consistently underreported large amounts of gross receipts and net income. Petitioner provided no explanation for underreporting his gross receipts. A consistent pattern of underreporting large amounts of income over a period of years is substantial evidence bearing upon an intent to defraud, particularly where the reason for such understatement is not satisfactorily explained or shown to be due to innocent2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*345 mistake.
Petitioner did not advise his tax preparer of the income omitted from his returns. Concealing income from one's return preparer can be evidence of fraud.
Moreover, petitioner was convicted of filing false Federal income tax returns under
In
the man who2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*347 files a wilfully false return has endeavored to
mislead his government. He creates the appearance of having
complied with the law, whereas his neighbor who has filed no
return does no such thing. Not only has he created the
appearance of complying, but that apparent compliance stands a
good chance of remaining unattacked, for the tax authorities
cannot possibly audit every taxpayer's return every year. * * *
The law has always distinguished between failing to disclose
useful information and making a disclosure which is a lie.
Petitioner's intentional filing of a false tax return each year from 1991 to 1994, reporting amounts of income which he knew to be false, is a strong indicium of fraudulent intent with respect to those years.
Petitioner has failed to submit credible evidence that he knowingly filed the false returns for any reason other than to evade taxes he knew to be owing. Thus, we conclude that petitioner fraudulently intended to underpay his tax for each of the years at issue.
Further, petitioner has failed to submit credible evidence showing that any part of the underpayment attributable to the omitted income is not due to fraud. To the contrary, the record establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the entire underpayment for each year is due to fraud. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the
Issue 2. Whether the Doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, and/or Double Jeopardy Bar Assessment of Deficiencies and Interest for All of the Years at Issue in an Amount Greater Than $ 61,700
Petitioner asserts that the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and/or double jeopardy preclude retrial of, or estop respondent with respect to, the liabilities before this2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 333">*349 Court. We disagree.
The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigating the same cause of action. The doctrine applies to a claim if it was, or could have been, litigated as part of the cause of action in a prior case.
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, provides that once an issue of fact or law is "actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation." Id. The preclusive effect of a prior court's factual determination depends on whether the prior court had jurisdiction to, and did, determine the fact at issue.
Petitioner was found guilty of willfully filing false income tax returns for 1991-94 in violation of
Next, petitioner argues that the imposition of the civil fraud addition to tax on top of his prison sentence and fine relating to his criminal conviction would constitute double jeopardy and would violate the U.S. Constitution. Petitioner maintains that subjecting him to the fraud penalty in this case would cause him to be punished twice for the same offense in violation of the
The
Imposing the fraud penalty under
Finally, petitioner argues that he has paid the $ 61,000 restitution ordered by the District Court and that the Government cannot be permitted to recover twice on the same tax liability. This Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a deficiency or overpayment exists. Should it ultimately be determined that petitioner has made payments in excess of any redetermined tax liability, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the correct amount of any overpayment in the taxable years before the Court.
Issue 3. Whether, Pursuant to
Generally, the Commissioner must assess tax within 3 years after the due date of a timely filed return.
To reflect the foregoing and concessions by respondent,
Decision will be entered under
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect at all relevant times, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
Helvering v. Mitchell ( 1938 )
Commissioner v. Sunnen ( 1948 )
Wright v. Commissioner ( 1985 )
Claude Douge and Jacqueline Douge v. Commissioner of ... ( 1990 )
nona-b-wood-owen-a-wood-owen-a-wood-and-nona-b-wood-v-commissioner ( 1957 )
Elizabeth H. Bardwell v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1963 )
Anthony N. Grimes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ... ( 1996 )
Samuel H. Klassie v. United States ( 1961 )
Mary Ruark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1971 )
Guilio J. Conti and Edith Conti v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1994 )
Joseph R. Dileo, Mary A. Dileo, Walter E. Mycek, Jr., ... ( 1992 )
Leo Elwert v. United States ( 1956 )
Stephen B. Scallen and Chacke Y. Scallen v. Commissioner of ... ( 1989 )
Clayton M. Korecky, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 )
John F. Kurnick and Celia Kurnick v. Commissioner of ... ( 1956 )
William Lusk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1958 )
United States v. Abe Bender ( 1955 )
George Schwarzkopf v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1957 )
I & O Publishing Co., Inc., and Wallace Ward v. ... ( 1997 )
United States v. William J. Alt, M.D. Rosalinda Alt Karen ... ( 1996 )