Jerry L. Crabtree - Page 34




                                       - 34 -                                         

             (8) failure to cooperate with tax authorities, see id. at                
             307-308.                                                                 
                  A corporation can act only through its officers.  See               
             Federbush v. Commissioner, 34 T.C. 740, 749 (1960), affd.                
             per curiam 325 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1963).  “Corporate fraud                  
             necessarily depends upon the fraudulent intent of the                    
             corporate officer.”  Id. (citing Auerbach Shoe Co. v.                    
             Commissioner, 216 F.2d 693 (1st Cir. 1954), affg. 21 T.C.                
             191 (1953)).  In these cases, the individual petitioners                 
             each own 50 percent of the stock of Crabtree Investments.                
             They serve as the only two officers of the corporation.                  
             On the basis of the entire record, we think the individual               
             petitioners exercised sufficient control over the affairs                
             of Crabtree Investments to justify imputing their actions                
             to Crabtree Investments.  See Auerbach Shoe Co. v.                       
             Commissioner, supra at 697.                                              
                  As to the fraudulent intent prong of the fraud                      
             analysis, respondent asserts that the following items of                 
             circumstantial evidence indicate fraud:  (1) Understatement              
             of income; (2) inadequate records; (3) implausible                       
             explanations of the unreported income; (4) petitioners’                  
             decision to rebuild the business after the fire destroyed                
             it; and (5) petitioners’ failure to report a robbery at                  
             gunpoint due to their fear of an IRS audit.                              





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011