- 21 - Strong evidence of petitioner's fraudulent intent for each year in issue exists in this case. Petitioner was an experienced attorney. Petitioner certainly knew of his professional obligation to maintain client funds and investments separate from his own funds and investments. With the exception of the $450,000 obtained by petitioner as a loan from William Marion, petitioner received substantial income by embezzling funds from his clients, by kiting checks, and by forging signatures, none of which petitioner reported on his Federal income tax returns. Petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns for many years, and petitioner's Federal income tax returns for 1988 and 1989 were untimely filed only after petitioner was contacted by respondent's representative about the delinquent returns. Petitioner's Federal income tax returns for 1988, 1989, and 1990 that were eventually filed were inaccurate and failed to report significant income that petitioner received in each year. Petitioner's pattern of not reporting taxable income, along with the other factors mentioned, establish by clear and convincing evidence petitioner's fraud with regard to his Federal income taxes for 1988, 1989, and 1990. Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 137 (1954); Bradford v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-601. Further, petitioner has not satisfied his burden of proving herein that any of the income adjustments that we have sustained were not attributable to fraud. Accordingly, the 75-percentPage: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011