Lawrence J. Polidori - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          Commissioner, 732 F.2d 1459, 1461 (6th Cir. 1984), affg. per                
          curiam T.C. Memo. 1982-603; Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85,             
          93 (1970).  Some conduct and evidence can be classified under               
          more than one factor.  The sophistication, education, and                   
          intelligence of the taxpayer are relevant to this determination.            
          Niedringhaus v. Commissioner,  99 T.C. 202, 211 (1992).  Several            
          of these indicia of fraud are present in this case.                         
          1. Petitioner's Sophistication and Experience.                              
               The sophistication and experience of a taxpayer are relevant           
          in determining whether fraud exists.  Id.; see also Plunkett v.             
          Commissioner, 465 F.2d 299, 303 (7th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1970-274; Iley v. Commissioner, 19 T.C. 631, 635 (1952).  This              
          includes the taxpayer's educational background.  Simms v.                   
          Commissioner, 422 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1970), affg. T.C. Memo.                
          1968-298.  Here, petitioner is an intelligent, educated man.  In            
          addition to practicing dentistry during the years at issue,                 
          petitioner was significantly involved in the real estate market,            
          leasing and selling various properties.  Moreover, the account              
          statements for petitioner's foreign bank account indicate that he           
          was an active investor in securities, specifically U.S. Treasury            
          Bills.  Having observed petitioner at trial and considering the             
          record, we cannot accept his claim of naivete.  It is unlikely              
          that petitioner, as a result of his failure to report the foreign           
          interest income, would not have realized his income tax                     






Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011