- 17 -
find the few contradictions in testimony to be understandable and
of little importance.
Furthermore, other evidence, including Toll’s records of the
bribes he paid petitioner supports their testimony. We have also
found the transcript of the “wired” conversation between Suval
and petitioner, though not explicit, to be very damaging to
petitioner.
We wish to note, however, that the expert report and opinion
of John Lackey add little weight to respondent’s case. First,
Mr. Lackey did not review all the returns which petitioner
examined. Additionally, the mistakes that Mr. Lackey found in
petitioner’s 1977 and 1978 tax return examinations could have
been unintentional, possibly resulting from petitioner’s
completing them in a hurry, or from the fact that petitioner did
not have the extensive examination resources that Mr. Lackey had.
This conclusion could be supported by the fact that Mr. Lackey
found similar mistakes in the 1979 and 1980 Cynwyd Group returns
which he examined, even though petitioner did not examine those
returns.
Nonetheless, even though we give little weight to Mr.
Lackey’s report, we find that respondent has proven, by clear and
convincing evidence, that petitioner received unreported bribe
income in 1980, 1982 and 1983. Accordingly, respondent has met
her burden of proving that underpayments existed for the years in
issue.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011