- 16 -
it. Jack Ham clearly compensated petitioner for his efforts
when, through his nephew, he paid Commerce Bank $15,000 to
partially extinguish petitioner's outstanding debt. Moreover, at
trial Bert Ham testified that he paid petitioner the 15,000 as a
finder's fee on behalf of his uncle, who owed petitioner the
money.
We hold that petitioner received a $15,000 finder's fee in
1978.
Issue 2. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for the Section 6653(b)
Fraud Addition to Tax
Under section 6653(b) respondent has the burden of proving
by clear and convincing evidence that there is an underpayment of
tax and that some part of the underpayment was due to fraud. See
sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b). Respondent must show that petitioner
intended to evade taxes known to be owing by conduct intended to
conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such
taxes. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983).
In the instant case, petitioner has already been
collaterally estopped from denying that he received $23,334.50
from Jack Ham in violation of the Hobbs Act. Moreover, as
discussed, supra pp.12-15, we found that petitioner received a
$15,000 finder's fee in 1978 from Jack Ham for assisting him in
procuring the $2.5 million construction loan through Commerce
Bank. Finally, petitioner's amended return admits receipt of the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011