- 14 -
for his hoard occurred sometime before 1982. Petitioner produced
canceled checks that purportedly represent moneys from real
estate sales. However, several of the checks appear to have been
deposited into petitioner's bank accounts, and no evidence of any
withdrawal of cash from these accounts was presented.
Petitioners failed to call any witnesses to corroborate any of
the alleged cash sales.
Petitioners' testimony was marked by "selective memories"
and otherwise was not credible. We therefore reject the
testimony of petitioners as to the existence of a cash hoard.
For purposes of the fraud addition to tax, respondent has
met her burden of proving this underpayment of tax by clear and
convincing evidence by showing a likely source for the cash
deposits and cash expenditures, i.e., the thefts, and by negating
petitioners' claimed nontaxable sources, i.e., the cash hoard.
See United States v. Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958); Holland v.
United States, 348 U.S. 121, 137 (1954).
Respondent must also prove fraudulent intent. Petitioner's
conviction under section 7206(1) does not collaterally estop
petitioner from disputing the addition to tax under section
6653(b). Wright v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 636, 643 (1985).
Respondent's burden with respect to fraudulent intent is met if
it is shown that the taxpayer intended to conceal, mislead, or
otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes. Stoltzfus v.
United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968); Webb v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011