- 42 -
the investigation was conducted by the Government and through
trial of these cases, they did not present any documents or
witnesses that corroborated their claims of substantial
deductible expenses not reported on their tax returns. As
discussed below, their belated attempts to reconstruct deductions
are not persuasive. Even in criminal tax evasion cases, where
the Government bears the greater burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, it is well settled “that evidence of
unexplained receipts shifts to the taxpayer the burden of coming
forward with evidence as to the amount of offsetting expenses, if
any.” Siravo v. United States, 377 F.2d 469, 473 (1st Cir.
1967); accord, e.g., United States v. Hiett, 581 F.2d 1199, 1202
(5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Garguilo, 554 F.2d 59, 62 (2d
Cir. 1977); Elwert v. United States, 231 F.2d 928, 933 (9th Cir.
1956); United States v. Bender, 218 F.2d 869, 871 (7th Cir.
1955); United States v. Link, 202 F.2d 592, 593 (3d Cir. 1953).
See Franklin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-184; Barragan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-92, affd. without published opinion
69 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 1995). Respondent’s burden of proving an
underpayment has been satisfied.
Respondent must also prove fraudulent intent. This burden
is met if it is shown that the taxpayer intended to evade taxes
known to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or
otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes. Webb v.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011