Jack J. Kramer - Page 42

                                                 - 42 -                                                   
            between a taxpayer's actual income and his reported income is                                 
            evidence of fraud.  Stone v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. at 224.  "This                             
            is particularly true where * * * there is other evidence that the                             
            taxpayer was engaged in unlawful activities which at once offer a                             
            probable explanation of the concealment, and make other                                       
            violations of law, including tax fraud, less difficult to                                     
            believe".  Manton v. Commissioner, a Memorandum Opinion of this                               
            Court dated Nov. 22, 1948 (citing Rogers v. Commissioner, 111                                 
            F.2d 987 (6th Cir. 1940), affg. 38 B.T.A. 16 (1938)); see also                                
            Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. at 912.  Even with the                                     
            reduction in unexplained income that petitioner's explanations                                
            showed, large discrepancies still exist for which petitioner                                  
            provided no evidence or explanation and for which we can find no                              
            answers, even given the corroborating circumstances of the                                    
            conduit nature of Safra.  This is especially true for 1986,                                   
            specifically the June expenditures of $206,500.  It is also true                              
            for 1987, where both respondent and petitioner stipulated $36,088                             
            in unexplained bank deposits and analysis of the records shows                                
            that as much as $41,899.34 of deposits in the three accounts                                  
            remained unexplained.  When these discrepancies are viewed in the                             
            context of petitioner's admitted illegal activity, his                                        
            demonstrated understanding of the consequences of his failure to                              
            report his income, and his failure to maintain adequate records,                              
            the unexplained bank deposits indicate fraudulent intent.                                     






Page:  Previous  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011