David Daniel and Annette Daniel - Page 20

                                                - 20 -                                                   
                  The circumstantial evidence of fraud alleged by respondent                             
            is dwarfed by petitioners' credible testimony.  In addition, Ms.                             
            Myers admitted at trial that several of petitioners' documents                               
            and other attempts of proving their claimed deductions were                                  
            rejected without serious consideration of either petitioners'                                
            veracity or the authenticity of proffered documents.                                         
                  We find that there is not in this record any credible                                  
            evidence in support of respondent's burden to establish by clear                             
            and convincing evidence that any part of petitioners'                                        
            underpayment for either of the years in issue is due to fraud.                               
            Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not liable for the                                 
            section 6663(a) fraud penalty.                                                               
                  To reflect the foregoing,                                                              
                                                             Decision will be entered                    
                                                       under Rule 155.                                   





















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  

Last modified: May 25, 2011