Dennis C. Gandy - Page 47

                                       - 47 -                                         

          301 F.2d 484 (5th Cir. 1962), affg. T.C. Memo. 1959-172.  In this           
          instance, there is clear and convincing evidence that petitioners           
          did not inform their tax return preparers of the diverted                   
          receipts and misled the preparers about their income, assets, and           
          the source of deposits into their bank accounts.                            
               Petitioners contend that they were unsophisticated and                 
          reasonably relied on their preparers.  We do not accept their               
          testimony in this regard.  These cases are comparable to Estate             
          of Temple v. Commissioner, supra, and we incorporate the same               
          analysis here.  There the Court stated:                                     
                    * * * [The taxpayer’s] conduct was intimately                     
               entwined with the inaccurate recording of his business                 
               income.  He often took receipt of incoming checks,                     
               endorsed them, sometimes withheld cash, and carried                    
               them to the bank for deposit.  This subsequently                       
               resulted in omitted or inaccurate journal entries.                     
               * * *  In addition, * * * [the taxpayer] had a                         
               consistent practice of cashing checks, which generated                 
               no deposit slips, and thereby prevented income from                    
               being recorded in the journal.                                         
                    While a taxpayer’s reliance upon his accountant to                
               prepare accurate returns may indicate an absence of                    
               fraudulent intent, this is true in the first instance                  
               only if the accountant has been supplied with all the                  
               information necessary to prepare the returns. * * *                    
               [The estate] argues in this regard that * * * [the                     
               preparer] had total access to all of the * * *                         
               [business’] books and records, so that even though the                 
               journal was inaccurate, a thorough professional job of                 
               accounting would have uncovered the inaccuracies.  Of                  
               course, the thorough audit conducted by respondent’s                   
               agents did discover many omitted and erroneous entries.                
               However, we cannot conclude on the basis of the record                 
               before us that * * * [the preparer] was retained to                    
               check with * * * [the business’] customers in order to                 
               find out whether they made payments to * * * [the                      
               business] which were not recorded in the journal or to                 




Page:  Previous  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011