- 13 - against petitioner's co-defendant Murray Glantz, who was convicted under section 7201, and who has conceded receipt of skim income and liability for the fraud addition. See In re Glantz, 468 N.Y.S.2d 634 (App. Div. 1983). Summary judgment on the tax fraud issue against the taxpayer was affirmed in Considine v. United States, 683 F.2d 1285, but there the taxpayer, offering no evidence or argument that the false statements on his tax return were made with any other intent than to defraud the Government, had not controverted the Government's assertion that he had filed his materially false return with fraudulent intent, id. at 1288. Here, petitioner has adduced evidence and argument that he lacked fraudulent intent. We conclude that this issue presents a factual dispute for trial.5 Respondent argues that petitioner’s intent to evade tax is evidenced by the fact that he was a sophisticated lawyer and investor, that he was convicted under section 7206(2) of assisting in the preparation of returns that were false and fraudulent, and that he was convicted under 18 U.S.C. sec. 371 (1994) of conspiring with others to defraud the United States. 5Compare Cimino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-80; Munson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-377; Twist v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-497; Siravo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-482; Keeton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-599, in all of which summary judgment as to fraud was granted to respondent based primarily on deemed admissions. In Chermack v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-57, also, there were indicia of fraud not present in the case at hand.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011