- 34 -
C. Portion of Understatement Attributable to Fraud
Respondent has proven clearly and convincingly that a
portion of petitioner’s understatement is attributable to fraud.
Thus, the whole understatement is considered attributable to
fraud, except to the extent that petitioner proves otherwise.
Petitioner testified that she was the victim of her scheming
attorneys, who, she says, stole the $1,149,048 at issue. The
evidence shows to the contrary; i.e., that petitioner was
proactively involved in these transactions and that the
$1,149,048 reached her personal accounts. The evidence shows
that petitioner sought out her attorneys to evade her payment of
her prior tax debts, that she gave her attorneys a broad
directive to devise a scheme that would allow her to evade paying
taxes, and that she actively questioned her attorneys on the
progress of the scheme. Her own handwritten notes show that she
was involved in tactical decisions such as where to send the BBL
money and how to ensure its safety in transit. Her attorneys
painted a consistent picture of her as a knowledgeable and
proactive participant in her financial affairs, and having seen
her testify, the Court finds their testimony credible.
Petitioner is not ignorant of financial affairs. The Court
finds her testimony that she had no involvement in this scheme
incredible, considering her demonstrated knowledge and her
proactive demeanor at the trial. Petitioner has failed to meet
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011