- 17 -
tax law did not require him to file such returns and pay such
taxes. According to petitioner, despite repeated inquiries, the
Service never informed him of his responsibility to file returns,
and his independent research and consultation with various
attorneys, predominately criminal defense attorneys, about the
requirement to file returns showed that there were "confusing and
conflicting case authorities" on that question.
A good-faith misunderstanding of the tax laws could negate
fraud under section 6653(b). See Niedringhaus v. Commissioner,
supra at 217. However, "There is a difference * * * between a
good-faith misunderstanding of the law and a good-faith belief
that the law is invalid or a good-faith disagreement with the
law". Id. Based on our observation of petitioner's demeanor at
trial, we did not find him credible and do not accept his ex-
planations as to why he did not file returns and pay taxes due
for the years at issue and why he and Ms. Leggett transferred
certain of their real properties to nominees. We are convinced
on the record before us that petitioner did not have a good-faith
misunderstanding of the tax law.5 By way of illustration, after
respondent commenced collection efforts in early 1994 against
5 At best, petitioner had a good-faith belief that the tax
law is invalid, or he had a good-faith disagreement with the tax
law. Even if petitioner had believed that he did not have to
file returns because the tax law requiring such filing is un-
constitutional, a belief that the tax law is unconstitutional and
should not apply is not a sufficient defense to fraud. See Cheek
v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 205-206 (1991); Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219 (1992).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011