Martin and Barbara Schachter - Page 20

                                       - 20 -                                         
          that she understood that many of the checks deposited into the              
          Lloyds/Sanwa account represented bad checks is not credible.                
          Bank statements for the Lloyds/Sanwa account were mailed to                 
          petitioners’ residence, and Barbara Schachter was the recipient             
          of significant funds paid out of that account.                              
               The evidence is persuasive, and we so find, that petitioners           
          each fraudulently intended to evade reporting and paying their              
          correct Federal income tax liabilities for 1985, 1986, 1987, and            
          1988 relating to unreported sales of Cal Ben.  Petitioners                  
          underreported their distributive share of Cal Ben’s income with             
          knowledge of the understatements and with intent to commit fraud.           
               Further evidence of petitioners’ fraud includes:  (1) The              
          large discrepancies between the income reported on petitioners’             
          income tax returns and petitioners' corrected income; (2) the               
          failure to maintain accurate and complete books and records;                
          (3) the fact that petitioners provided incorrect and incomplete             
          information to their tax return preparer; and (4) the fact that             
          petitioners did not disclose the Lloyds/Sanwa account to                    
          respondent’s representative.                                                
               Lastly, with regard to fraud, petitioners argue that                   
          imposition of the civil fraud addition to tax on top of                     
          petitioner's prison sentence and fine relating to his criminal              
          conviction would constitute double jeopardy and would violate the           
          U.S. Constitution.                                                          






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011