Henry Deletis, Jr. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          record.  Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983); Hicks           
          Co. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 982, 1019 (1971), affd. 470 F.2d 87            
          (1st Cir. 1972).  Fraudulent intent may be inferred from                    
          circumstantial evidence, such as proof of conduct the likely                
          effect of which is to mislead or conceal.  Spies v. United                  
          States, 317 U.S. 492, 499-500 (1943); Foster v. Commissioner, 391           
          F.2d 727, 733 (4th Cir. 1968), affg. in part, revg. and remanding           
          in part T.C. Memo. 1965-246; Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C.            
          at 1006.                                                                    
               Courts frequently list various factors or "badges of fraud"            
          from which fraudulent intent may be inferred.  Although such                
          lists are nonexclusive, some of the factors this Court has                  
          considered indicative of fraud are (1) understatement of income,            
          (2) inadequate records, (3) failure to file tax returns, (4)                
          implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior, (5)                   
          concealment of assets, (6) failure to cooperate with the tax                
          authorities, (7) filing false Forms W-4, (8) failure to make                
          estimated tax payments, (9) dealing in cash, (10) engaging in               
          illegal activity, and (11) attempting to conceal illegal                    
          activity.  Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 211 (1992)            
          (citing Bradford v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303, 307-308 (9th Cir.           
          1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-601).                                          
               Petitioner has understated his income.  Although petitioner            
          presented Caplan with a list of some of the missing cars during             
          the inventory, he has not presented any evidence to show he kept            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011