- 13 -
A. In General
The record in this case reflects a general pattern of
dereliction, but not one of deceit and fraud. There can be no
doubt that petitioner’s reliance upon his father was misplaced
and in no way relieved petitioner of his obligation to correctly
report his tax liability. Petitioner may not avoid his duty to
accurately report by placing the responsibility on an agent. See
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 250-251 (1985). There is
ample evidence, as observed by his return preparer, that
petitioner’s tax records were inaccurate and inadequate and
commingled personal and business items. Petitioner knew that his
earnings exceeded the $350 received weekly from his father for
personal expenses. But petitioner was not aware of the
particulars of his tax reporting, including the amount of income
reported on his Federal income tax returns. In spite of his
laxity and inattention to the administration of his business,
petitioner did not intend to evade tax by conduct intended to
conceal, mislead, or prevent the collection of tax.
Petitioner’s forte was in the operational side of his
construction business. He was young and inexperienced regarding
the administrative necessities of his business. As a result,
petitioner relied exclusively on his father to look after the
administrative matters, including tax reporting. Petitioner
perfunctorily signed documents, including tax returns, that his
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011