DocketNumber: Docket No. 9379-10
Judges: KROUPA
Filed Date: 1/9/2014
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Decision will be entered for respondent.
KROUPA,
The parties have stipulated some facts. We incorporate the stipulation of facts and accompanying exhibits by this reference. Petitioner resided in Texas when he filed the petition.
Petitioner is an experienced and savvy businessman. Petitioner earned a business administration degree from the University of Houston in 1975. In the 1980s petitioner organized various business entities engaged in residential real estate projects. Petitioner then worked as a salaried employee for the better part of the next decade.
Petitioner served as bookkeeper for Seaboard Controls (Seaboard) from 1992 to March 1994 and prepared its Federal income tax returns.
Seaboard was involved in a project for the Venezuelan Government (Venezuelan project). To that end, Seaboard tasked petitioner with obtaining financing on Seaboard's behalf. Petitioner was unsuccessful, and Seaboard ultimately lost money on the Venezuelan project.
Seaboard never had a profit-sharing agreement with petitioner relating to the Venezuelan project. Petitioner never requested Seaboard to satisfy any purported debt.
Petitioner was incarcerated from April 1994 to December 1995 for a Federal bank fraud conviction. Petitioner was not employed, nor did he earn income during his incarceration.
Houston Drywall, Inc. (Houston Drywall), d.b.a. Classic *7 Contractors of Houston, Inc. (Classic Contractors), hired petitioner as a salesman after his incarceration. Houston Drywall paid petitioner wages during each year at issue. *7 Petitioner also prepared Federal tax returns for Classic Contractors for 1998 through 2001.
Classic Contractors paid petitioner an additional $28,817 Kingwood Project Petitioner proposed a residential real estate project in Kingwood, Texas (Kingwood project). Classic Contractors agreed to purchase a tract of land for the Kingwood project if petitioner developed, marketed and sold the residential lots. Classic Contractors agreed to split with petitioner the net profit. Classic Contractors obtained financing to purchase an undeveloped tract of land. Petitioner then developed and subdivided the real property into approximately 250 residential lots. Petitioner sold about 50 lots but was unable to sell the remainder. Classic Contractors eventually defaulted on the note, and the lender took title of the remaining lots. The Kingwood *8 project thus was unprofitable. Petitioner was not owed any money related to the Kingwood project. Nor did petitioner ever attempt to collect any purported debt from Classic Contractors. Petitioner prepared and filed Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the years at issue. Petitioner used the accrual basis of accounting for the years at issue despite being an individual. Petitioner reported wage income from Classic Contractors of $55,000 for 1996, $164,719 for 1997, $260,000 for 1998, $260,730 for 1999, $260,000 for 2000 and $255,230 for 2001. Petitioner claimed he was exempt from withholding on Form W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate, he submitted to his employer at the beginning of each year at issue. Petitioner also reported a consulting business on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for the years at issue. Petitioner reported $5,491 of Schedule C income for 1997 but no Schedule C income for the other years at issue. Nor did petitioner report the 1099 income. Petitioner claimed bad debt deductions of $41,302 for 1996, $137,500 for 1997, $215,100 for 1998, $209,000 for 1999, $183,727 for 2000 and *9 $205,000 for 2001. Petitioner determined the uncollectible amounts resulting from the Venezuelan and Kingwood projects at the end of each year at issue. Respondent requested information regarding the 1099 income. Petitioner claimed that he had reported the 1099 income as income for 1995 and 1996. He *9 asserted that the 1099 income Classic Contractors reported in 1997 was a payment on accounts receivable. Petitioner asserted that Classic Contractors made or would make additional payments. Respondent later requested additional information regarding the 1099 income. Petitioner again claimed that he had reported that income for 1995 and 1996 and the payment was posted against an outstanding balance on an account receivable. Petitioner also provided respondent fabricated documents that purportedly corroborated the debts. One such document was a letter purportedly issued by Classic Contractors during petitioner's incarceration and before his employment with Classic Contractors. Respondent's criminal investigation unit (CIU) reviewed the returns petitioner filed. Petitioner provided documents during a voluntary interview. Each document showed purported net operating losses (NOLs) petitioner carried *10 forward and the purported bad debt that petitioner wrote off each year. CIU recommended that the United States criminally prosecute petitioner. The United States indicted petitioner for filing fraudulent returns and providing materially false documentation for 1998, 1999 and 2000. Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to filing a false Federal income return for 2000. *10 Petitioner entered into a plea agreement acknowledging that he had never reported income from Classic Contractors and that he was not entitled to any bad debt deduction. The parties agreed that petitioner had an "unused, available, and partially offsetting [$102,108] net operating loss deduction" for 2000 (2000 NOL) resulting in a $19,603 tax liability. Petitioner agreed, however, that the stated tax liability was only for criminal prosecution purposes and did not resolve his civil tax liabilities. The plea agreement "expressly exclude[d] and reserve[d] for subsequent civil proceedings the determination of any tax, interest or penalties due." Respondent issued petitioner the deficiency notice disallowing the bad debt deductions and determining that *11 petitioner failed to report self-employment income for 1996, 1997 *11 (explanation). Respondent detailed in the explanation the reason for each adjustment. Petitioner filed the petition contesting all determinations in the deficiency notice. We are presented with an individual taxpayer that used the accrual method of accounting to offset wage income with purported bad debts. We must decide whether respondent correctly disallowed the bad debt deductions and determined petitioner did not report income. We also address a series of procedural challenges petitioner raises. We then consider whether respondent demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that *12 petitioner acted with intent to evade tax such that he is liable for the fraud penalty. We begin with the burden of proof. The Commissioner's determinations in a deficiency notice are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. The burden may shift to the Commissioner if the taxpayer proves that he or she has satisfied certain conditions. We turn now to the bad debt deductions petitioner claimed. Respondent contends that petitioner failed to show a bona fide debt existed that became *13 worthless during each year for which petitioner claimed the deduction. Petitioner contends the 2000 NOL establishes that he had available net operating losses from earlier years. We first consider whether the bad debt deductions petitioner claimed satisfy A taxpayer may deduct any bona fide business debt that becomes worthless within a taxable year. Petitioner's contention that he included income, as an individual, for prior years under the accrual method is absurd. Petitioner never included in income the *14 purported profits from the Venezuelan project or the Kingwood project. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate the purported debts became worthless during the years at issue. A taxpayer must prove that the debt had value at the beginning of the year in which it allegedly became worthless and that it became worthless during that year. We now consider whether the 2000 NOL described in the plea agreement precludes respondent from challenging certain bad debt deductions. Petitioner asserts that the 2000 NOL establishes the purported debt and precludes respondent from challenging the bad debt deductions for 1996 through 1999. Respondent counters that he is not precluded because the 2000 NOL *17 was not an essential fact actually litigated in the prior proceeding. We agree with respondent. Collateral estoppel may preclude a party from litigating previously decided issues of fact or law necessary to a court's prior judgment. The plea agreement does not preclude respondent from challenging the bad debt deductions. Petitioner pleaded guilty to filing a false individual tax return for 2000. This establishes an underpayment for that year. We next consider whether respondent correctly determined that petitioner failed to report the 1099 income. Petitioner asserts that the Forms 1099-MISC alone are insufficient for respondent to determine petitioner had unreported *17 income. Petitioner disputes the income's characterization, not his receipt of it. The record demonstrates that petitioner acknowledged during examination receiving *19 the 1099 income. He claimed that he reported the 1099 income for an earlier year as repayment of indebtedness from Classic Contractors. We have already rejected petitioner's assertion that Classic Contractors was indebted to him and that he previously reported the income. Petitioner's admission that he received the income supports respondent's determination with respect to the 1099 income. Petitioner has not demonstrated the determination is incorrect. Petitioner throws a variety of procedural challenges at the deficiency determination. We address each argument in turn. Petitioner first suggests, without any particularity, that the deficiency notice fails to describe the basis for the adjustments. We next consider petitioner's assertion that respondent improperly examined returns for certain years multiple times. Petitioner contends respondent was obligated to issue second examination notices before doing so. *19 The Commissioner may review matching information on a tax return with other records or information in his possession. We now consider whether respondent demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner acted with fraudulent intent. We do so to decide whether petitioner is liable for the civil fraud penalty under We now consider whether petitioner is liable for the fraud penalty under The Commissioner must show that the taxpayer acted with specific intent to evade tax that the taxpayer knew or believed he or she owed by conduct intended to conceal, mislead or otherwise prevent the collection of tax. Courts rely on several indicia or badges of fraud. These badges of fraud include understatement of income, inadequate records, failure to file tax returns, *21 concealment of assets, failure to cooperate with tax authorities, filing false documents, failure to make estimated tax payments, engaging in illegal activity, attempting to conceal illegal activity, dealing in cash, implausible or inconsistent explanations *23 of behavior, an intent to mislead that may be inferred from a pattern of conduct, and lack of credibility of the taxpayer's testimony. Petitioner consistently understated his income for each year at issue. The understatement of income can be shown by an overstatement of deductions. Petitioner's inadequate and incomplete records failed to substantiate any bad debt deductions for the years at issue. There was no credible documentation confirming that petitioner *24 held debt, that the debt ever became worthless or that the debt became worthless the year he claimed. Petitioner also did not cooperate with respondent. Respondent repeatedly sought additional information regarding the years at issue. Petitioner made false statements and produced misleading or fabricated documents purportedly substantiating the claimed deductions. Petitioner engaged in illegal conduct as he pleaded guilty to filing a false Federal income tax return for 2000. A conviction under Petitioner provided inconsistent explanations that demonstrate an intent to mislead respondent. Respondent examined bad debt deductions petitioner claimed for multiple years. Petitioner repeatedly asserted that he was entitled to the deductions. He claimed that he reported the 1099 income in an earlier year when he had in fact not reported the income. Petitioner's testimony lacked credibility. He continued to assert that Seaboard and Classic Contractors were indebted to him. The record consistently contradicted his testimony. Petitioner's experience and understanding of tax law support a finding that he acted with fraudulent intent. In toto, many badges of fraud apply to petitioner. We conclude that respondent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that there was an underpayment for each year at issue and each underpayment was attributable to fraud. Once the Commissioner has established by clear and convincing evidence that any portion of an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment shall be treated as attributable to fraud, except with respect to any portion of the underpayment that the taxpayer establishes (by a preponderance of the evidence) is not attributable to fraud. Petitioner asserts that he misunderstood the requirements to claim the bad debt deductions because his tax professional advised him to use the accrual method of accounting. Respondent contends that petitioner failed to show that any portion was not attributable to fraud. We agree with respondent. *25 Petitioner contends he relied on a tax professional's advice. *27 Petitioner failed to corroborate, however, that he received the advice he claims he did. The tax professional did not testify. And petitioner did not offer any evidence corroborating his assertions. Further, petitioner has not explained how advice purportedly given in the 1970s informed him on whether he could claim bad debt deductions arising in the 1990s. There is no indication that a tax professional reviewed relevant documents and advised petitioner on the years at issue. Rather, petitioner had a strong understanding of tax law and prepared returns for himself and his former employers. His assertions are incredible, illogical and entirely unbelievable. The record demonstrates that petitioner consistently misled respondent and intentionally confused issues to avoid his tax obligations. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any portion of the income was not attributable to fraud.
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.↩
2. Monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
3. Respondent determined that petitioner did not report self-employment income of $31,682 for 1997. This amount represents the $37,173 Classic Contractors reported on the Form 1099-MISC as paid to petitioner less $5,491 in Schedule C income petitioner reported for 1997.↩
4. Petitioner provided carbon copies of checks that he claims demonstrate the existence of bad debts but failed to submit any corresponding receipts or bank statements. The checks do not substantiate the existence of bad debts.
5. We note that petitioner never demonstrated an available NOL. Rather, petitioner asserted at trial that the plea agreement established the 2000 NOL and precluded respondent from denying petitioner an NOL available for earlier years. The burden nonetheless rested with petitioner to demonstrate that he was entitled to NOL deductions. Petitioner acknowledged at trial that he was not attempting to reconstruct the NOL. Nor does the record establish petitioner was entitled to claim any NOL deductions.
6. Certain conditions must also be met for collateral estoppel to apply.
7. Petitioner also argues that respondent did not adequately explain why he allowed petitioner a short-term capital loss of $3,000 for each year at issue. Petitioner claims that respondent was required to "describe the source" of the losses. Petitioner, however, does not challenge this adjustment.↩
8. Respondent alternatively requested we impose an accuracy-related penalty under
Commissioner v. Sunnen ( 1948 )
Cathy Miller Hardy v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1999 )
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner ( 1992 )
Beaver v. Commissioner ( 1970 )
Stephenson v. Commissioner ( 1982 )
Tokarski v. Commissioner ( 1986 )
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering ( 1934 )
Stephen B. Scallen and Chacke Y. Scallen v. Commissioner of ... ( 1989 )
Ramon Portillo and Dolores Portillo v. Commissioner of ... ( 1991 )
Kevin J. Morse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service ( 2005 )
Robert W. Bradford v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 )
Frank J. Hradesky v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1976 )
Spies v. United States ( 1943 )
Joseph Solomon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1984 )
John L. Stephenson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1984 )
Estate of Guy L. Mann, Deceased. Suzanne Mann Duval, ... ( 1984 )
Meier v. Commissioner ( 1988 )