- 30 -
clear from the record in this case--and we are convinced--that
petitioner did submit falsified documents to respondent's agents
during the audit and Appeals process. Petitioner’s intent in
submitting these falsified documents to respondent was to
persuade respondent to accept petitioner's assertion that the
payments by INI to Burke's estate were payments on an accrued
bonus, not payments under the buy-sell agreement. Cf. Bagby v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 607. Petitioner admitted he gave the
IRS false documents in order to satisfy the agent and the Appeals
officer that the bonus was deductible, because the "end justifies
the means". Petitioner also admitted that he "went too far" in
submitting such documents to the IRS.
The fourth factor indicating that petitioner had fraudulent
intent with respect to the understatements found above is the way
in which he used his experience and knowledge of the tax laws in
this case. Petitioner tried tax cases as an assistant U.S.
attorney, and he currently maintains a general law practice which
includes corporate and business law. Although petitioner took
only one law school course on taxation, he is a practicing lawyer
and is more knowledgeable about tax law than the average
taxpayer. See Wheadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-633
(holding lawyer accountable for fraud); cf. Sisson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-545, affd. 108 F.3d 339 (9th Cir.
1996)(holding tax lawyer accountable for fraud). Scanlon-Hull
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011