6
accessions to wealth under the dominion and control of the
taxpayer. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961); Rutkin v.
United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952). Section 1 imposes a tax on
individuals for taxable income received. The liability for the
payment of the income tax is ordinarily on the individual
receiving the income. Edwards v. Commissioner, 39 T.C. 78
(1962), affd. in part and revd. in part 323 F.2d 751 (9th Cir.
1963).
The evidence submitted in this case clearly shows the
receipt of the income by petitioners, and in fact they admitted
it in the pleadings. Petitioners' argument of a "loan" is not
only unsupported by this record, it is clearly contrary to that
record, and we find that respondent's determination with respect
to unreported income must be sustained.
We next consider the correctness of the imposition of
additions to tax for fraud on petitioners by respondent. On this
matter, the burden of proof is on respondent, Rule 142(b). A
failure to file tax returns, without more, is not conclusive
proof of fraud, but may be considered in connection with other
facts. Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir.
1968); Kotmair v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1253, 1260 (1986).
Petitioners' entire course of conduct can be relied on to
establish a fraudulent intent. Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C.
96, 106 (1969).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011