Ernesto H. Monroy - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          respectively, and both invoices listed petitioner's address as              
          Ave. Hidalgo, #407 in Toluca, Mexico.                                       
               Respondent determined the deficiencies in petitioner's                 
          Federal income tax by using the source and application of funds             
          method.                                                                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               Respondent argues that the 1990 and 1991 transfers from                
          Mexico and the 1990 downpayment to Alamo Title were unreported              
          taxable income to petitioner from petitioner's business interests           
          in Mexico.  Respondent also argues that petitioner underpaid his            
          taxes for both years due to fraud.  Petitioner contends that the            
          transfers and downpayment were nontaxable loans from a Mexican              
          corporation and his family.                                                 
               The penalty in the case of fraud is a civil sanction                   
          provided primarily as a safeguard for the protection of the                 
          revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of            
          investigation and the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud.             
          Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 401 (1938).  Respondent has            
          the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, an                 
          underpayment for each year and that some part of an underpayment            
          for each year was due to fraud.  Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b).  If             
          respondent establishes that any portion of the underpayment is              
          attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment is treated as                
          attributable to fraud and subjected to a 75-percent penalty                 






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011