- 11 - (1988); Shaw v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. 561, 569-570 (1956), affd. 252 F.2d 681 (6th Cir. 1958). In order to sustain his heavy burden of proof, respondent relies on the testimony of Revenue Agent Bayles and the report Revenue Agent Bayles prepared in connection with the audit of petitioner’s returns. The report contains merely the revenue agent’s conclusions. Notably, Revenue Agent Bayles concluded that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax/penalty for fraud for 1988 and 1989 but not for 1987. Furthermore, Revenue Agent Bayles’s testimony was conclusory--he merely stated which badges of fraud he felt were present. Respondent provided no evidence to corroborate Revenue Agent Bayles’s conclusory statements. In light of respondent’s document retention/destruction policy, we understand why respondent did not have any additional documentary evidence to present at trial. This policy, however, does not relieve respondent of his burden of proof. On the basis of the evidence, we conclude that respondent has failed to sustain his heavy burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax and penalties for fraud. Accordingly, we do not sustain any of the additions to tax or penalties for fraud. B. Remaining Issues Petitioner admitted that he did not raise collectionPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011