- 6 -
We find petitioner has failed properly to prosecute his
case. He did not appear for his trial, he has disobeyed this
Court's order, and he has failed to cooperate with respondent.
We find that these failures were due to petitioner’s willfulness,
bad faith, or fault. We shall grant respondent’s motion and
dismiss in part this case for failure properly to prosecute.
This leaves the issue of whether petitioner is liable for
the additions to tax for fraud determined by respondent.
Respondent must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.
1111, 1123 (1983); Drabiuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-260.
Fraud requires a showing that the taxpayer intended to evade a
tax known or believed to be owing. See Stoltzfus v. United
States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968). In order to carry
his burden as to fraud, respondent must prove that: (1)
Petitioner underpaid his tax in each year, and (2) some part of
each underpayment was due to fraud. See Roots v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1997-187; Lee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-597;
Merlino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-200. Under section
6653(b)(1)(A) and (B), if respondent establishes that some part
of petitioner’s underpayment was due to fraud, the entire
underpayment is treated as attributable to fraud unless
petitioner proves otherwise. See sec. 6653(b)(2). The mere fact
that we have sustained respondent's deficiency determination does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011