- 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