- 20 -
original Federal income tax returns. Accordingly, we find that
Mr. Pressley's preparation of petitioner's returns is not a
sufficient defense to fraud.
Petitioner contends that it was his intention to file
amended returns as soon as he received Forms 1099 from Mr. Hall.
We find that it is more reasonable to infer from petitioner's
entire course of conduct that his true intention was to conceal
the payments he received from Mr. Hall and to take his chances
that his fraud would not be discovered. Petitioner was aware of
the exact amount of the payments he received no later than
November 21, 1992, when he signed the affidavit. However, it was
not until after respondent began an examination of petitioner's
returns for the years in issue in February 1993 that he amended
his returns and paid his taxes. The fraud was committed, and the
offense completed, when the original return was prepared and
filed. See United States v. Habig, 390 U.S. 222 (1968); Plunkett
v. Commissioner, 465 F.2d 299, 302-303 (7th Cir. 1972), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1970-274. "Any other result would make sport of the
so-called fraud penalty. A taxpayer who had filed a fraudulent
return would merely take his chances that the fraud would not be
investigated or discovered, and then, if an investigation were
made, would simply pay the tax which he owed anyhow and thereby
nullify the fraud penalty." George M. Still, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 19 T.C. 1072, 1077 (1953), affd. 218 F.2d 639 (2d
Cir. 1955).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011