- 26 -
The list of the badges of fraud, however, is illustrative.
We consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of each
case to determine whether there is fraudulent intent. King's
Court Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 511, 516
(1992); Recklitis v. Commissioner, supra.
Respondent contends that the following facts, taken as a
whole, prove that petitioner had the intent to fraudulently evade
paying income tax on at least some part of the underpayment for
the years in issue: (1) Petitioner was aware of, and was
receiving the proceeds from, the settlement check cashing; (2) he
was an experienced attorney; (3) he failed to maintain adequate
books and records; (4) he allegedly misled the revenue agent; and
(5) he dealt in cash.
As to the $88,000 in checks petitioner deposited into the
Mitsui account in 1991, petitioner knew of these checks when his
original and amended tax returns were filed. Additionally, we
find that petitioner was aware that these checks were omitted
from his return in 1991. His explanation that they were omitted
due to a breakdown in communication with his accountant is
unpersuasive. Petitioner may have wanted to conceal the Mitsui
account from his accountant in order to prevent Mr. Yoon from
learning of this account; however, that does not provide
justification for omitting income. We conclude that respondent
has clearly and convincingly proven fraud with regard to the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011