- 11 - as evidence of attempts to conceal. The problem with respondent’s scenario is that--except for the failure to report the embezzlement income--it is not supported by the facts. First, the evidence does not show that petitioner withheld any information from respondent or refused to cooperate in any way with respondent. During the 10 months Agent Johnson spent investigating petitioner, he never interviewed her in an effort to establish her state of mind in failing to include the illegal income on her returns. In fact, Agent Johnson testified that on the only occasion when he met with petitioner she was pleasant, cooperative, and willing to review her tax and bank records with him if her attorney were present. This was perfectly reasonable, since Agent Johnson was conducting a criminal investigation. Durand, petitioner's attorney, did in fact speak with the agent on several occasions about the ongoing investigation and promptly provided a power of attorney when requested. At trial, Agent Johnson acknowledged that petitioner cooperated with the investigation, and that he did not intend in his report to indicate otherwise. It was Agent Johnson who severed all contact with petitioner after Durand allegedly gave Agent Johnson the impression that he, Durand, was "looking for a letter from the IRS forgiving someone for stealing money from the airlines." From that point forward, Agent Johnson made no further effort toPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011