- 13 -
those shares, he was required to report the value of those shares
as income for 1983, as he had been advised by his accountant. In
1985, Richard, as petitioner’s nominee, sold the 25,000 shares
and improperly reported the gain on his income tax return.
Petitioner did not report any gain in connection with the sale of
the 25,000 shares.
Putting together the willfulness established by petitioner’s
convictions for violating section 7206(1) and the facts that
petitioner is estopped from denying, we find that petitioner had
the requisite fraudulent intent both with respect to 1983 and
1985; i.e., the intent to evade tax believed to be owing by
conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the
collection of such tax. Even if we were to disregard the facts
that petitioner is estopped from denying, we would reach the same
conclusion, based on the evidence directly presented in this
case. Petitioner intended to omit income to satisfy the
Congressional requirements restricting his outside income to less
than 30 percent of his Congressional salary. In the process of
deceiving Congress, petitioner intended to understate his income
on his tax returns.
Petitioner argues that there was no tax evasion and no loss
of revenue to respondent because Richard, as his nominee,
reported the income from the receipt of the Wedtech stock and
1985 sale of such stock. However, we have long held that a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011