- 23 -
Respondent contends that even if petitioner's return
preparer was negligent in the way she handled the preparation of
his return, this fact does not excuse petitioner's willfulness to
deceive. However, the question is whether respondent has shown
by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was attempting
fraudulently to deceive in order to evade tax. The fact that he
would be led by a return preparer to believe that he had done all
that he had needed to do and his returns would be accurately
prepared, goes to the question of his intent to evade tax. In
our view, the only evidence respondent has produced in this case
that the claiming of these deductions was other than a mistaken
belief that the amounts were deductible is the statements
petitioner made when he pled guilty to count 2 of the indictment
alleging that he had filed a false return for 1983 by deducting
the cost of air transportation that he knew he was not entitled
to deduct. Respondent points out that at the hearing on
petitioner's guilty plea, the court asked petitioner: "Well, the
point is, did you know you were cheating when you had some
$38,000 in air expenses", and petitioner answered, "Yes, your
honor". The court asked, "You knew that", and petitioner
answered, "Yes". The court stated: "So you did something wrong
and you appreciate that". Petitioner answered: "Yes your honor,
I did something wrong, you are right." The Court then asked:
"No question about it, huh?" And the answer was, "Yeah". This
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011