Kim Beauchamp - Page 24

                                       - 24 -                                         

               Petitioner claimed $6,406 of child care costs as a business            
          expense on his Schedule C for 1990.   Petitioner claimed expenses           
          for medical malpractice insurance when in fact he did not carry             
          such insurance.  Petitioner also dealt in cash.                             
               After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances, we                 
          conclude that respondent has clearly and convincingly proven that           
          a portion of petitioner's underpayments of tax for 1988, 1989,              
          and 1990 was due to fraud on the part of petitioner.                        
               Once the Commissioner establishes that a portion of the                
          underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment is           
          treated as attributable to fraud except for any portion of the              
          underpayment which the taxpayer establishes is not attributable             
          to fraud.  Secs. 6653(b)(2), 6663(b).                                       
               We find that the portion of each underpayment attributable             
          to petitioner's claiming COGS for his real estate activity is not           
          due to fraud.  Petitioner believed that his real estate activity            
          was a trade or business.  Furthermore, petitioner disclosed on              
          his 1988, 1989, and 1990 Schedules C that his principal business            
          or profession was "Med. Doctor & Home Construction Co", "Medicing           
          [sic] & Construction", and, "Med. Doctor & Contractor",                     
          respectively.  Combining his medical practice gross receipts and            
          real estate activity COGS on one Schedule C appears to have been            
          a mistake by petitioner and was not due to fraud.                           
               We conclude, therefore, that petitioner is liable for an               
          addition to tax for fraud pursuant to section 6653(b)(1) for                



Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011