Donald J. and Lillian Joy Miravalle - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
          presumed.  Cochrane v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 18, 28 (1996).                
          Since direct proof of a taxpayer's intent is rarely available,              
          fraud may be established by circumstantial evidence and                     
          reasonable inferences drawn from such evidence.  Korecky v.                 
          Commissioner, supra; Cochrane v. Commissioner, supra.  The                  
          taxpayer's entire course of conduct may establish the requisite             
          fraudulent intent.  Bagby v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 596, 609                
          (1994).  Mere failure to file tax returns is not sufficient to              
          establish fraud.  Kotmair v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 1253, 1261               
          (1986).                                                                     
               Respondent points to the purchase of substantial assets as             
          one indicator of petitioners' fraud.  Respondent also alleges               
          that petitioners chose tax-free bonds as their investment vehicle           
          so as to avoid the reporting of taxable interest.  However, only            
          $10,000 of bonds were purchased during the years at issue and               
          that purchase occurred on December 30, 1983.  Petitioners                   
          purchased the sailboat and the warehouses in 1985 and 1986,                 
          respectively.  Respondent has not shown a connection between the            
          unreported income for the years 1982 and 1983 and these assets.             
          The latter purchases and the convictions for criminal tax evasion           
          for the years 1984 through 1986 do not shed any light on                    
          petitioners' intent with respect to the years at issue in the               
          instant case.  The use of one's maiden name alone is not                    
          indicative of fraud, particularly where, as here, Mrs. Miravalle            
          used her maiden name for business purposes.                                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011