- 21 -
Several other indicia of fraud are extant here. There was
some concealment and deception. Petitioner's records were, to
some extent, inadequate or intentionally misstated. Petitioner
was not an innocent bystander in the events that, ultimately,
caused his incarceration. He was involved in fraudulent activity
concerning the Mid-Continent corporations, and he failed to
report $60,000 of so-called reimbursed preincorporation expenses,
which he knew was includable in income from his 1982 reporting of
the $110,000 amount. We have also considered petitioner's
background and level of sophistication in taxation.
Respondent has clearly and convincingly proven that
petitioners' 1983 joint Federal income tax return was fraudulent
within the meaning of section 6653(b). In this regard, the
entire underpayment is due to fraud.
Respondent also determined an addition for fraud for each of
the years 1980 through 1982; however, no evidence was offered at
trial or arguments made on brief in support of that
determination. Accordingly, we hold that respondent has not
shown that petitioners' 1980, 1981, and 1982 returns were
fraudulent.
Period for Assessment--Respondent's notice of deficiency for
the taxable years 1980 through 1983 was mailed November 20, 1991.
Petitioners have placed in issue whether the period for
assessment has expired with respect to the years before the
Court. The last of the returns for the years in question was
filed on June 23, 1984. Accordingly, the normal 3-year period
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011