- 11 -
did not misrepresent, secrete, or attempt to deceive. Although
we do not approve of petitioner's reasons for failing to file
returns and failing to submit to respondent's examination, those
events, on this record, do not satisfy respondent's burden to
clearly and convincingly prove fraud.
On this record, we do not find that petitioner's
underpayment was due to an intent to evade taxes known to be due
and owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise
prevent the collection of taxes. Stoltzfus v. United States,
supra at 1004; Rowlee v. Commissioner, supra at 1123; Acker v.
Commissioner, supra at 112.
Respondent places great emphasis on the fact that
petitioner had an accountant for the 1985 taxable year,
contending that this reflects a history of filing timely tax
returns, and thus petitioner knew of the filing requirements.
Petitioner, however, did not set out to evade tax he thought to
be due. Instead, he came to believe that he was not obligated to
file a Federal tax return and that he had no obligation to pay
Federal tax. On this record, we find that his belief was not an
intentional attempt to fraudulently evade the payment of tax.
Respondent also argues that petitioner attempted to conceal
assets by dealing in cash. Petitioner's resolve to close his
bank account and, therefore, use cash was not coupled with his
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011