Theodore Langworthy, Jr. - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          to explore the implications of Richardson v. Commissioner, supra            
          and Perez v. Commissioner, supra.  Consequently, we conclude,               
          that respondent has shown by clear and convincing evidence that             
          petitioner had unreported gross receipts, net of expenses, which            
          result in an underpayment of tax for each year in issue.                    
               B.   Proof That the Underpayment Was Due to Fraud                      
               Fraud is defined as an intentional wrongdoing designed to              
          evade tax believed to be owing.  Powell v. Granquist, 252 F.2d 56           
          (9th Cir. 1958); DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 874; Miller v.           
          Commissioner, 94 T.C. 316, 332 (1990).  The Commissioner's burden           
          of proving fraud is met 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 taxes.  Stoltzfus            
          v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968); DiLeo v.              
          Commissioner, supra at 874; Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111,           
          1123 (1983).                                                                
               The existence of fraud is a question of fact and is to be              


          19(...continued)                                                            
               1These figures (rounded to the nearest dollar) represent petitioner's  
          unreported gross receipts as recalculated in accordance with this opinion.  
          See the discussion concerning gross receipts in part II of this opinion,    
          infra.                                                                      
               2These figures represent the amount of band expenses claimed by        
          petitioner in the stipulated computations.  As discussed infra, we conclude 
          that petitioner is entitled to deduct band expenses in the amount of $18,150
          for 1987, $19,800 for 1988, $16,088 for 1989, and $13,200 for 1990.         
               3Respondent concedes that petitioner may deduct the 7-percent New York 
          State sales tax associated with any additional gross receipts received by   
          petitioner from the sale of beer, wine, or liquor.  We computed the sales tax
          shown above on the basis of the amount of petitioner's unreported gross     
          receipts as recalculated in accordance with this opinion.                   
               4These figures represent the additional purchases allowed by respondent
          in the deficiency notice and in the stipulation of facts.                   




Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011