- 300 -
respondent has clearly proven the underpayments of income tax
attributable to such omitted income for those years.
E. Intent to Evade Tax
Next, respondent must show by clear and convincing evidence
that Ballard, Lisle, and Kanter intended to evade taxes known to
be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise
prevent the collection of such taxes. See Stoltzfus v. United
States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968).
The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved
upon consideration of the entire record. See Gajewski v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976), affd. without published
opinion 578 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978). Fraud is not presumed or
imputed; it must be established by independent evidence that
establishes a fraudulent intent on the taxpayer's part. See
Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96, 106 (1969). Because direct
proof of a taxpayer's intent is rarely available, fraud may be
proved by circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences may
be drawn from the relevant facts. See Spies v. United States,
317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943); Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C.
995, 1006 (1982), affd. 748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984). For
example, an intent to conceal or mislead may be inferred from a
pattern of conduct, see Spies v. United States, supra at 499, or
from a taxpayer's entire course of conduct, see Stone v.
Commissioner, 56 T.C. 213, 223-224 (1971). Likewise, a pattern
Page: Previous 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011