- 14 -
fully cooperate with revenue agents. Mr. Gilchrist withheld
information concerning the number and location of their personal
bank accounts. The Gilchrists also gave inconsistent
explanations with respect to various items. Moreover, the
engagement letters executed by the Gilchrists explicitly stated
that Mr. Crim would simply prepare the returns from information
provided and would not be responsible for investigating the
accuracy of such information. Thus, petitioners had the burden
of providing accurate information to Mr. Crim.
Furthermore, the disparity between the gross income reported
on the individual returns (i.e., ranging from ($582) to $13,144)
and the amounts omitted (e.g., diverted corporate income of
$94,983.42 in 1986, $66,173.01 in 1987, and $105,891 in 1988) is
so great that the Gilchrists could not reasonably have overlooked
it when they signed the returns. Estate of Temple v.
Commissioner, supra at 163-164. Consequently, the Gilchrists'
contention is unpersuasive.
The Gilchrists also contend that imposition of the additions
to tax for fraud under section 6653(b) following their conviction
under section 7206(1) constitutes a second punishment for the
same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We disagree.
Where the addition to tax under section 6653(b) is assessed
following a conviction under section 7201 for criminal tax
evasion, the addition to tax does not constitute a second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011