- 30 -30
satisfy his burden by showing that a "'tax-evasion motive
[played] any part' in petitioner's conduct". Id. Respondent
must establish fraud on the part of each petitioner for each
taxable year involved by clear and convincing evidence. Otsuki
v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96, 105 (1969).
The fraud of a sole or dominant shareholder can be
attributed to the corporation. Benes v. Commissioner, 42 T.C.
358, 383 (1964), affd. 355 F.2d 929 (6th Cir. 1966); see also
DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 875 (1991), ("[C]orporate fraud
necessarily depends upon the fraudulent intent of the corporate
officers."), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). In these cases,
Ferrentino is the sole shareholder and president of AJF. He
exercised total control over all the checks issued from J.C.
Penney to AJF. Ferrentino determined whether he would cash
checks personally or have them deposited into AJF's corporate
operating account. We think Ferrentino exercised sufficient
control over the affairs of AJF to justify imputing to AJF any
fraud committed by Ferrentino.
The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved
upon examination of the entire record. Parks v. Commissioner, 94
T.C. 654, 660 (1990); Recklitis v. Commissioner, supra at 909.
Fraud is never presumed, but it must be established by
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011