- 26 -
sum payment "would not be considered taxable income".
There is no factual basis for such argument in the record
of this case. Neither petitioner nor the FBI agent who was
called as a witness testified that an FBI agent gave
petitioner any such advice. Indeed, petitioner did not
even ask the FBI agent about any such statements.
Petitioner does not identify the agent or employee of the
FBI who allegedly gave him such advice, nor did he subpoena
such person to testify. We do not accept petitioner's
attempt to explain his failure to call the agent to testify
on the ground that the undercover operation was ongoing at
the time of trial or that it would have been compromised by
the agent's testimony. There is nothing in the record to
suggest that the operation was ongoing at the time of
trial, but, even if it were, there is no reason to believe
that the agent's testimony concerning statements about the
taxability of petitioner's lump-sum payment would have
compromised the operation. Indeed, petitioner exhibited
no such reluctance in 1994 when he filed suit against the
FBI and six of its special agents seeking a greater share
of the money and property that had been seized during the
undercover operation. We find that petitioner failed to
show that his failure to file a return for 1993 was due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect, and we sustain
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011