David D. Le, a.k.a. David Dung Le, a.k.a. Dung V. Le and Kim Huong Le, a.k.a. Kim Le, et al. - Page 21

                                        -21-                                          
          from the relevant facts.  Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492              
          (1943); Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 995 (1982), affd.               
          748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984).  Where fraud is determined for                
          multiple years, as is the case here, respondent must establish              
          the requisite fraudulent intent for each of the years in order to           
          prevail as to all of the years.  The Court may sustain                      
          respondent’s determination of fraud only as to those years for              
          which the fraudulent intent is established clearly and                      
          convincingly.  Fraud requires a showing that the taxpayer                   
          intended to evade a tax known or believed to be owing by conduct            
          intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection           
          of tax.  Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d.               
          Cir. 1968).                                                                 
               We often rely on certain indicia of fraud in deciding the              
          existence of fraud.  The presence of several indicia is                     
          persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud.  Beaver v.                     
          Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85, 93 (1970).  The “badges of fraud”                 
          include:  (1) Understatement of income; (2) maintenance of                  
          inadequate records; (3) failure to file tax returns;                        
          (4) implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior;                   
          (5) concealment of income or assets; (6) failure to cooperate               
          with tax authorities; (7) engaging in illegal activities;                   
          (8) dealing in cash; (9) failure to make estimated tax payments;            
          and (10) filing false documents.  Spies v. United States, supra;            






Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011