William Kale - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         
          of proving that he did not receive unreported bribe income during           
          the years in issue, but rather spends the bulk of his time                  
          arguing that respondent did not meet her burden of proving fraud.           
          Petitioner states in his brief:                                             
                    Respondent enjoys no presumption of correctness in                
               her assessment.  Instead, * * * [petitioner] is                        
               presumed not to have received * * * [the bribes] unless                
               Respondent affirmatively establishes (1) that * * *                    
               [petitioner] took the bribes and, if so, (2) how much                  
               he received * * *.                                                     
          Petitioner’s understanding of who bears the burden of proof is              
          skewed.  Despite respondent’s burden of proving fraud, Rule                 
          142(b), petitioner still bears the burden of proof regarding the            
          deficiency.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra.3  Viewing              
          the procedural posture of this case in an incorrect light,                  
          petitioner offers little evidence other than his own testimony,             
          which is insufficient to overcome respondent's determination of             
          income tax deficiencies.  Petitioner’s testimony was at complete            
          odds with the hard evidence.  For example, petitioner claims that           
          his trail of investigation led him to the tax returns of Cynwyd             
          Investment and Saligman Capital, which opened the door for                  
          investigation of the Cynwyd Group’s returns.  However, a review             
          of petitioner’s work chronology finds that result impossible.               
          Petitioner first examined the 1977 and 1978 returns of the Rita             
          Cooper Trust and the Harvey Saligman Trust.  He found a problem             


               3 In regard to the burden of proof in fraud cases, see                 
          Franklin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-184.                              




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011