- 11 -
Petitioner’s explanation is implausible in light of his testimony
that he does not have a will and his wife did not have a will
when she died. Removing assets from respondent’s reach by
transferring them to a trust has been held to be an affirmative
act of fraud. See Simmons v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-269.
We find that the transfer of the personal residence and business
interests to the trusts and his implausible explanation are both
evidence of fraud.
Petitioner next argues that transferring his assets to
various trusts was not fraudulent because he used his own Social
Security number as the trusts’ taxpayer identification number and
he continued to live in the residence after the conveyance to the
trust. These contentions do not persuade us, however, that
petitioner’s intent was to comply with respondent’s collection
efforts when considered in conjunction with all of petitioner’s
actions during the relevant period. We find that petitioner
transferred his assets to various trusts to hinder respondent’s
collection efforts, and such action therefore is evidence of
fraud.
Most of the badges of fraud that this Court customarily
relies on are present in this case. There is a pattern of
failing to file income tax returns, understating income, failing
to cooperate with tax authorities, making frivolous arguments,
failing to make estimated tax payments, concealing assets and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011