- 18 - (3) giving implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior; (4) concealing assets; (5) failing to cooperate with tax authorities; (6) engaging in illegal activities; (7) attempting to conceal illegal activities; (8) dealing in cash; and (9) failing to make estimated tax payments. Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 910 (1988). These "badges of fraud" are nonexclusive, and none of them is dispositive in and of itself. Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 211 (1992). A taxpayer's sophistication, education, and intelligence may be considered in determining whether or not he had fraudulent intent. See Halle v. Commissioner, 175 F.2d 500, 502 (2d Cir. 1949), affg. 7 T.C. 245 (1946); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, supra; see also Wheadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-633. Although there are several factors or "badges" existing in this case which might indicate fraud, on balance, we believe that respondent has not proven fraud by clear and convincing evidence. We observed petitioner at trial. His testimony reflected that he lacked financial sophistication and that he strongly believed that his cattle-breeding operation did not generate sufficient net income to require the filing of a tax return. We do not sustain respondent's finding of fraud when we are only left with a suspicion of fraud. Green v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 538, 550 (1976); see Comparato v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-52. In the instant case, we cannot conclude that petitionerPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011