- 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-percent
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011