- 20 -
to fraud. Only to that extent can respondent prevail in her
determination of an addition to tax under section 6653(b)(2).
Based, in part, on the testimony of Toll and Suval and
records kept by Toll, we are convinced that petitioner received
an unreported $105,000 bribe in 1980, and thus an underpayment
attributable to fraud resulting from that amount exists for that
year. The $7,500 bribe, however, poses a problem. We have
sustained respondent’s adjustment in regard to the $7,500. We
did so because petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving
that he did not receive that amount over 1982 and 1983 and that
respondent’s method of allocation was unreasonable. We have
found, based on respondent’s evidence, which we regard as clear
and convincing, that petitioner did indeed receive from Suval
unreported bribe payments totaling $7,500. However, respondent
has not adequately proven when petitioner received those
payments. Suval testified that he received bribe payments from
Toll over a course of 2 years, beginning at the end of 1981, and
that he paid petitioner the $7,500 in installments, upon
receiving his own payments from Toll. Suval did not testify,
however, that he paid the entire $7,500 to petitioner in 1982 and
1983. Notwithstanding that fact, we can approximate petitioner’s
receipts, bearing heavily on respondent who bears the burden of
proof on this issue. Sec. 6653(b)(2); Rule 142(b); see Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). Exhibit 16-P includes a
record of Toll’s $65,000 bribe payments to Suval (not included
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