-64-
amounts of income on each of the tax returns they actually filed
for the years in issue.
Based on the foregoing summary, our observations of Robert
at and in connection with the trial, and the record as a whole,
we conclude (and we have found) that respondent has shown by
clear and convincing evidence that the underpayment of tax for
each of the years in issue was due to Robert's fraud.
In order to take account of (1) the effect of petitioners'
late-filed joint tax returns for 1981 and 1982 (see supra, our
discussion of Phillips v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 433 (1986), affd.
on this issue and revd. on another issue 851 F.2d 1492, 1496-1498
(D.C. Cir. 1988)), (2) respondent's concessions, and (3) our
determinations in the instant report that (a) certain items were
not income to petitioners,30 and (b) respondent carried the
burden of proof in certain assertions that petitioners had income
items in addition to those determined in the notices of
deficiency,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
30 We had dismissed Robert's case insofar as he had the
burden of proof. However, in addition to respondent's
concessions, in a few instances the record clearly shows that the
notices of deficiency were wrong. Our determinations in the
instant report in this regard supersede our previous order of
dismissal.
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Last modified: May 25, 2011