- 38 -
negligence, carelessness, recklessness, or even gross negligence
will not, by itself, support such a finding. United States v.
MacKenzie, 777 F.2d 811, 818-819 (2d Cir. 1985); see also Wright
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-328, affd. without published
opinion 73 F.3d 372 (9th Cir. 1995).
vii. Conclusion
We find that respondent has clearly and convincingly proven
fraud on the part of petitioner for all years in issue, and we so
hold. We also find that respondent has clearly and convincingly
proven that petitioner is liable for the time-sensitive provision
for fraud with respect to the total deficiency for 1982.24
Issue 5. Period of Limitation
Respondent generally must assess tax within 3 years of the
later of the due date of a return or its filing date. Sec.
6501(a) and (b)(1); Mecom v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 374, 381
(1993), affd. without published opinion 40 F.3d 385 (5th Cir.
1994). Because respondent mailed the subject notice of
deficiency to petitioners after this 3-year period, she must rely
on an exception to the general rule to assess Federal taxes for
those years. As one exception to the general rule, tax owed on a
false or fraudulent return may be assessed at any time. Sec.
6501(c)(1). "Fraud" has the same meaning in section 6501(c)(1),
as in section 6653(b). Ruidoso Racing Association, Inc. v.
24 We note that all of the deficiency for 1982 stems from
respondent's adjustment to petitioners' interest income.
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