Stephen Martin Beddow - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

               We find petitioner has failed properly to prosecute his                
          case.  He did not appear for his trial, he has disobeyed this               
          Court's order, and he has failed to cooperate with respondent.              
          We find that these failures were due to petitioner’s willfulness,           
          bad faith, or fault.  We shall grant respondent’s motion and                
          dismiss in part this case for failure properly to prosecute.                
               This leaves the issue of whether petitioner is liable for              
          the additions to tax for fraud determined by respondent.                    
          Respondent must prove fraud by clear and convincing evidence.               
          See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C.              
          1111, 1123 (1983); Drabiuk v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-260.            
          Fraud requires a showing that the taxpayer intended to evade a              
          tax known or believed to be owing.  See Stoltzfus v. United                 
          States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968).  In order to carry              
          his burden as to fraud, respondent must prove that: (1)                     
          Petitioner underpaid his tax in each year, and (2) some part of             
          each underpayment was due to fraud.  See Roots v. Commissioner,             
          T.C. Memo. 1997-187; Lee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-597;              
          Merlino v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-200.  Under section                
          6653(b)(1)(A) and (B), if respondent establishes that some part             
          of petitioner’s underpayment was due to fraud, the entire                   
          underpayment is treated as attributable to fraud unless                     
          petitioner proves otherwise.  See sec. 6653(b)(2). The mere fact            
          that we have sustained respondent's deficiency determination does           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011