Robert D. Sparrow - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          filing period.  We conclude that these returns were filed                   
          untimely.  Because Mrs. Sparrow has also failed to prove that               
          either of these untimely filings was due to reasonable cause and            
          not due to willful neglect, we sustain respondent's                         
          determination.                                                              
          5.  Fraud--Section 6653(b)                                                  
               Respondent must meet her burden of proving fraud through               
          affirmative evidence; fraud is never imputed or presumed.                   
          Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85, 92 (1970).  Whether fraud               
          exists in a given situation is a factual determination that must            
          be made after reviewing the particular facts and circumstances of           
          the case.  DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 874 (1991), affd.            
          959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992).  Respondent must show clearly that              
          petitioner intended to evade a tax known or believed to be owing.           
          Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968).             
               Based on our review of the record, we are not convinced that           
          Mr. Sparrow is liable for fraud for any of the years in issue.4             
          We so hold.                                                                 
          6.  Increased Rate of Interest--Section 6621(c)                             
               Section 6621(c) applies if there is a substantial                      
          underpayment attributable to tax-motivated transactions.  The               
          term “tax motivated transaction” connotes a sham or fraudulent              


          4 We find little to no value in the testimony of the two                    
          witnesses that respondent called at trial to support her                    
          determination.                                                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011