- 11 -
petitioner’s omissions, thus, clearly and convincingly establish
underpayments for 1983 and 1985.
b. Fraudulent Intent
The second element of section 6653(b)(1) is the taxpayer's
state of mind, to wit, whether the taxpayer intended to evade tax
believed to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or
otherwise prevent the collection of such tax. See, e.g.,
Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 909 (1988). The
existence of a fraudulent state of mind is a question of fact to
be determined from the entire record. See, e.g., id. Fraud is
never imputed or presumed; it may, however, be proved by
circumstantial evidence, because direct proof of the taxpayer's
intent is rarely available. See, e.g., id. at 910-911.
Respondent need not establish that tax evasion was a primary
motive of petitioner but may satisfy his burden by showing that a
tax-evasion motive played any part in petitioner's conduct,
including conduct also serving to conceal another crime. See
Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943)("If the tax-
evasion motive plays any part in such conduct the offense may be
made out even though the conduct may also serve other purposes
such as concealment of other crime."); Recklitis v. Commissioner,
supra at 910.
Petitioner was convicted under section 7206(1) of willfully
making false statements on his Federal income tax returns for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011