- 42 -
that (1) there is an underpayment, and (2) at least some of the
underpayment is attributable to fraud. Shaw v. Commissioner, 27
T.C. 561, 570 (1956), affd. 252 F.2d 681 (6th Cir. 1958). “If he
carries this burden by clear and convincing evidence, * * * the
correctness of the deficiencies determined by him will [again] be
presumed.” Id. This burden does not require respondent to prove
each item comprising the underpayment set forth in the notice of
deficiency, nor does it require respondent to prove all of the
underpayment is attributable to fraud. Sec. 6663(b); see also
Shaw v. Commissioner, supra at 570; Bencivenga v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-239.
CFC’s concession of a $226,316 underpayment, of which
$226,069 is attributable to fraud, satisfies respondent’s burden
of proving that some part of CFC’s underpayment is due to fraud.
Console v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-232 (underpayment
attributable to fraud deemed stipulated under Rule 91(f) for
failure to prosecute can satisfy both elements of respondent’s
burden of proof); Wagner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-355
(stipulation to underpayment satisfies that element of
respondent’s burden of proof); Barlow v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-11 (stipulation to underpayment satisfies that element of
respondent’s burden of proof and stipulation to fraud
acknowledged by Court but decided on other grounds); see also
Frazier v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1, 12-13 (1988). Consequently,
a part of CFC’s 1994 underpayment is due to fraud. Sec. 6663(b).
Unless CFC establishes that a portion of the underpayment is not
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011