- 48 -
gross receipts for both its fiscal 1981 and its fiscal 1982 “is
an obvious indication” of its fraudulent intent to evade tax; (3)
petitioners’ explanations of Kenmore’s asserted large nontaxable
deposits and the reasons for large cash expenditures are so
implausible that the giving of the explanations is itself a
further indication of fraud; (4) “Kenmore’s * * * pleas to theft
and * * * admission to the receipt of income resulting from this
theft is further proof of * * * fraudulent intent”; and (5)
Kenmore’s “extensive dealings in cash * * *[show its] attempt to
conceal corporate assets”.
Petitioners contend as follows: (1) Kenmore made a good
faith effort to keep adequate records, and was prevented from
producing all its records by a burglary of Kenmore’s then-
attorney’s office, and by New York State’s auctioning off of the
remaining contents of that office; (2) Kenmore was “forced by
market conditions to operate for many vital transactions on a
cash basis”; and (3) Kenmore did not conceal its income and
Gleave “was not educated, and he left the bookkeeping to trusted
long term employees, each of whom did the best they [sic] could
with the transactions at hand”.
We agree with respondent’s conclusion and with some of
respondent’s contentions.
In weighing Kenmore’s intent and actions, we note that a
corporation is a separate entity, created by statute, which acts
through its officers, employees and agents. Benes v.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011