- 35 -
information was provided to Mr. Fenn and Mr. Stimmel and nothing
was concealed from them.
Respondent's argument that the return preparers were not in
a position to uncover Mr. Davis' influence over the appraisers is
without merit. Mr. Davis did not control, or conspire with, the
appraisers hired to value the Brown Road property or the 220
acres. On the basis of the entire record, we conclude that Mr.
Davis (via his employees) provided complete information to his
return preparers, and his reliance on them was reasonable. This
indicates the absence of fraudulent intent.5
J. Respondent's Remaining Arguments
Respondent also attempts to establish fraudulent intent by
pointing to the fact that IRS records reflect that Mr. Davis has
not filed any gift tax returns for the years 1970 through 1993
and that Mr. Davis was uncooperative.
While the failure to file gift tax returns for the gifts to
Mr. Walker and Dr. Ottelin might be troubling in a vacuum, we
previously found that Mr. Davis relied on professional
5 Respondent also argues that Mr. Stimmel did not prepare
Mr. Davis' tax returns. This argument is without merit. We
found as a fact that Mr. Stimmel prepared Mr. Davis' tax returns
for 1984, 1985, and 1987. Furthermore, in respondent's proposed
finding of fact No. 307, respondent requested that the Court find
"Richard Stimmel prepared petitioner's income tax returns during
the relevant time period" as a fact.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011