Kondamodi S. Rao and B. Satyaveni Rao - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          payments he received directly from patients; attempted to conceal           
          the existence of two bank accounts; omitted substantial amounts             
          of income over a 3-year period; and was uncooperative with IRS              
          agents because his representative canceled many meetings.                   
          Respondent further argues that Dr. Rao cannot shift                         
          responsibility to his accountant since he did not provide him               
          with all the information necessary to prepare accurate returns.             
               Petitioners argue that Dr. Rao has not committed fraud                 
          because the omissions from income were caused by his return                 
          preparer on whom Dr. Rao reasonably relied; no bank accounts into           
          which income was deposited were concealed from the IRS agents;              
          Dr. Rao has no accounting or financial expertise; Mr. Raclaw's              
          cancellation of appointments cannot be considered lack of                   
          cooperation by Dr. Rao; and Dr. Rao provided his accountant with            
          all the information necessary to compute gross income.                      
          B.  The Law of Fraud                                                        
               The addition to tax 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 a 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 the underpayment           
          was due to fraud.  Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Katz v.                       
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1130, 1143 (1988); Otsuki v. Commissioner,            




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011