- 37 -
have an interest in a foreign account during those years. The
1982 return did not report that petitioners had an interest in a
foreign account during that year. None of the subject returns
reported the commissions that petitioner earned from ABL, or the
interest earned thereon. All of these misstatements (or
omissions) are due to the fact that petitioner did not tell his
accountant/tax preparer (Mr. Schiller) that petitioner had an
interest in a foreign account. We find this factor to be
evidence of fraud. Korecky v. Commissioner, 781 F.2d 1566, 1569
(11th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-63.
c. Legal Advice
Petitioner requested and was given legal advice on the
appropriate manner to report his commissions for Federal income
tax purposes. He deliberately ignored this advice. We find that
petitioner's lack of regard for Finley Kumble's advice was for
the primary purpose of evading taxes, and we conclude that this
factor supports respondent's determination. Although not
necessary to our conclusion, we note that fraudulent intent can
be found by reasonable inference drawn from proof that a taxpayer
deliberately closed his or her eyes to what would otherwise have
been obvious to him or her. In other words, a trier of fact may
infer that an individual knew of his or her evasion of tax from
his or her willful blindness to the existence of that fact. Of
course, the trier of fact must find that the individual actually
knew of his or her tax evasion. A showing of mistake,
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011