- 30 - based on the source of receipts. Also, among the records seized by respondent’s agents was an adding machine tape on which Mrs. Karcho had labeled the unreported monthly cash tallies as “pocket money”. We hold that respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence that the underpayments in each of the years in issue are attributable to the fraud of each petitioner and that petitioners have not established that any portion of such underpayments is not attributable to fraud. Accordingly, the period for assessment with regards to those years remains open. See sec. 6501(c)(1); Sisson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-545 (fraud for purposes of section 6501(c) is the same as fraud for penalty purposes), affd. without published opinion 108 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996). We have considered all of petitioners’ remaining arguments and, to the extent not addressed herein, find them meritless. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Last modified: May 25, 2011