- 14 - deductions resulted in $156,961 of additional income that was to be reported $52,321 by Mr. Perry, $52,320 by Mr. Rosenthal, and $52,320 by Mr. Feinsmith. Randy Hall attached to that second amended return the affidavits of Messrs. Feinsmith, Rosenthal, and Perry, which read virtually verbatim. The affidavit of Mr. Feinsmith was the one that he attached to his second amended return for 1984.4 OPINION We decide whether the estate is liable for the additions to tax for fraud determined by respondent. Respondent must prove this determination by clear and convincing evidence. Sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1113 (1983). Fraud requires a showing that the taxpayer intended to evade a tax known or believed to be owing. Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968). Here, respondent must prove: (1) Mr. Feinsmith underpaid his taxes for each of the subject years and (2) some part of each underpayment was due to fraud. Respondent must also prove for purposes of section 6653(b)(2) the portion of the underpayments attributable to fraud. See sec. 6653(b)(2); see also Cooney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-50. 4 The parties agree that Randy Hall’s second amended return overstated by $17,362.80 its income for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 1984, and that Mr. Feinsmith's 1984 income from the scheme should be reduced by $5,787.60.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011