Ella Freidus - Page 17

                                        - 17 -                                         

          fraudulent, we apply the same elements used when considering the             
          imposition of the addition to tax for fraud under former section             
          6653(b)(1) and present section 6663(a).  See Clayton v.                      
          Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 653 (1994).                                      
               The parties have stipulated that petitioner's income tax                
          deficiencies are $31,554, $226,297, $42,521, and $835,656 for the            
          1987, 1988, 1989, and 1990 taxable years, respectively.  On the              
          record before us, we hold that respondent has established by                 
          clear and convincing evidence that petitioner has an underpayment            
          for each of the years 1987 and 1988, and has a tax liability                 
          exceeding her prepayment credits for each of the taxable years               
          1989 and 1990.                                                               
               To prove fraudulent intent, respondent must prove by clear              
          and convincing evidence that the taxpayer intended to evade taxes            
          that were believed to be owing by conduct intended to conceal,               
          mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes.  See             
          Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 909 (1988).  Tax evasion             
          need not be a primary motive, but respondent may satisfy his                 
          burden by showing that a "'tax-evasion motive play[ed] any part'             
          in petitioner's conduct".  Id.  Respondent must establish fraud              
          for each taxable year involved by clear and convincing evidence.             
          See Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96, 105 (1969).                          
               The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved             
          upon examination of the entire record.  See Parks v.                         

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011