- 22 -22
otherwise. Petitioner's testimony that the records were in
disarray is also credible. The lack of organized records, given
petitioner's criminal problems during the years in issue, does not
reflect an intent to evade taxes. See Marinzulich v. Commissioner,
31 T.C. 487 (1958); Ouellette v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1971-98.
Second, we believe petitioner never understood that he was supposed
to file the delinquent returns directly with Revenue Officer
Scilipoti, as respondent contends. In this regard, Revenue Officer
Scilipoti testified only that it was his standard operating
procedure to ask taxpayers to submit delinquent returns directly to
him. Revenue Officer Scilipoti did not testify that he
specifically told petitioner to hand-deliver petitioners' tax
returns to him. Additionally, there was never any clear
understanding about the filing of amended returns. Mr. Mules
testified that he did not expect to prepare them, and petitioner
testified that he was not aware of his obligation to file amended
returns. The failure to file amended returns does not evince an
intent to evade taxes. Broadhead v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1955-
328.
Third, apparently relying on the notes and mortgages executed
in favor of Irvington Federal, petitioner did not know that the
check-kiting scheme resulted in taxable income, and apparently
Revenue Officer Scilipoti did not recognize the issue either. The
lack of knowledge that ill-gotten gains are taxable tends to show
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011