- 19 - “very good incomes” that orthopedic surgeons might generally be expected to earn to support such a lifestyle. On the basis of all the evidence, we believe that petitioner should have been aware of this discrepancy. Petitioner testified that after Dr. Barranco commenced his medical practice (sometime well before 1983), their lifestyle “kept getting better and better” because he “was making more money * * * as far as I was concerned”. Yet in 1983, the Barrancos’ reported income dropped precipitously, we surmise, for in that year their joint return omitted $805,819 of gross income.11 As previously discussed, petitioner is charged with knowledge of the amounts of income reported on the joint returns. See Hayman v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d at 1261; Terzian v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 1170. The pattern persisted for the next 9 years: the Barrancos’ joint returns continued to omit very large amounts of gross income even as their lifestyle kept getting “better and better”. They acquired parcels of real property substantially greater than the amounts they had acquired before the tax years at issue; they 11 The record does not reveal how much gross income the Barrancos reported for any year before 1983. The evidence does indicate, however, that Dr. Barranco’s tax evasion activities commenced in 1983, at a time when the Barrancos’ lifestyle had been steadily improving. Accordingly, we infer that in 1983 there was a falling off in the Barrancos’ reported income more or less commensurate with the $805,819 of gross income that was omitted from the Barrancos’ 1983 joint return.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011