- 17 -
with respect to the signatures on the returns supplied to the
mortgage company.
Respondent argues that these circumstances indicate
petitioner’s knowledge that the income reported to the Government
was understated. Petitioner does not deny that there were
discrepancies and that the amounts reported to respondent
differed from the amounts contained in the return documents
provided to the mortgage company. Petitioner, consistent with
his approach to business documents and procedures, was not
cognizant of the contents of the returns presented to the various
recipients or of the taxable income that was being earned from
his business activity. Petitioner did not have working knowledge
of the administrative side of his business and followed his
father’s guidance on those aspects of his business.
There has been no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,
that would lead us to find that petitioner was aware of the
discrepancies or that he colluded with his father in an attempt
to deceive the Government or the mortgage company. Even if
petitioner’s father intended to conceal, deceive, and defraud,
such a finding would not automatically be imputed to petitioner.
Respondent, relying on United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d
1123, 1129 (10th Cir. 1998), contends that petitioner cannot, by
burying his head in the sand, avoid blame for any deception by
his father. Bornfield, a criminal case, involved a “deliberate
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