- 14 - supplied by Griffith and that he had no contact with petitioner during the preparation process. Petitioner testified that her attorneys advised her not to sign the amended return. Based on the testimony of petitioner, the tax preparers, and Agent Johnson himself, we disagree with respondent's assertion that petitioner's failure to sign the amended return shows her intent to evade taxes. Finally, in addressing the other so-called badges of fraud, we find that Agent Johnson's own testimony exonerates petitioner. He testified that petitioner never denied receipt of the embezzled funds, nor did she attempt to conceal the money from the IRS. She made no false entries on any book or records, she did not backdate or postdate any documents, she did not maintain two sets of books, nor did she claim fictitious deductions. She did not hide any bank accounts, she did not maintain a safe deposit box or otherwise hoard any funds, nor did she keep accounts under false names. She did not make any false statements related to the preparation and examination of her 1984 and 1985 tax returns, nor in any other way did she hinder the examination of those returns. In addition, we had an opportunity to closely observe petitioner's demeanor at trial. She answered questions freely and without evasion, and we found her testimony credible. In light of the foregoing, we find that respondent has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner engagedPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011