- 44 -
the preparer's advice and actual preparation of the returns to
calculate his taxable income. See, e.g., Marinzulich v.
Commissioner, 31 T.C. 487, 490-491 (1958). However, not yet
resolved is the tax consequence of whether a taxpayer can rely
upon the advice of an attorney not to cooperate with the IRS
because of the implications for ongoing criminal investigations
against him. However, given the limited scope of the privilege
against self-incrimination to protect a taxpayer from charges of
failing to file a return, see, e.g., United States v. Egan, 459
F.2d 997, 998 (2d Cir. 1972), such a shield would not likely
provide much comfort to petitioner. However, we need not reach
that issue here, because the presence of all of the other factors
prevents petitioner's failure to cooperate from being the sole
determinant.
(b) Causal connection between indicia of fraud and
petitioner's specific purpose to evade paying taxes
The record is replete with the badges of fraud as discussed
above from which we can infer the specific purpose of evading
taxes. But the record also contains some evidence that
petitioner may not have actually intended to fraudulently evade
paying taxes. The issue is whether, using the indicia of fraud
in the presence of such contrary evidence, we infer from the
record as a whole that petitioner had the specific purpose to
evade paying his taxes. Estate of Temple v. Commissioner, 67
T.C. 143, 159 (1976).
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011