Joseph A. and Carol DelVecchio - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          For both years, if the Secretary establishes that any portion of            
          an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment           
          is attributable to fraud, except with respect to any portion of             
          the underpayment that the taxpayer establishes is not                       
          attributable to fraud.  See sec. 6653(b)(2).  Respondent has the            
          burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence.  Sec.             
          7454(a); Rule 142(b).  To prove that a taxpayer fraudulently                
          underpaid a dollar of tax, respondent must prove both the fact of           
          the underpayment and fraudulent intent with respect thereto.                
          See, e.g., Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 909 (1988).              
               B.  Existence of an Underpayment                                       
               The first inquiry is whether any underpayment exists.  As              
          relevant to this case, section 6653(c)(1) defines an                        
          “underpayment” for purposes of section 6653 as a “deficiency”               
          defined under section 6211.  Petitioners filed amended returns              
          for 1987 and 1988, the Forms 1040X, showing additional taxes due.           
          Each of petitioners’ amended returns is an admission of a tax               
          underpayment.  See Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 399             
          (1984).  Respondent has satisfied the first prong of the test.              
               C.  Fraudulent Intent                                                  
                    1.  Introduction                                                  
               The second inquiry concerns the taxpayer’s state of mind.              
          The existence of a fraudulent state of mind is a question                   








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011