- 38 -
employees and Mr. Reiter’s staff, although petitioner may have
had someone doublecheck her figures on occasion, she had no
difficulty with numbers. Furthermore, at trial, petitioner
lucidly discussed Mr. Rangel’s bank deposit analysis and
presented her own figures to state her position regarding the
amounts in issue.
We conclude that petitioner did not suffer from a learning
disability, and this is just another example of petitioner’s
repeated attempts to misconstrue the facts of this case and
mislead the Court.
D. Conclusion
After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances, we
conclude that respondent has clearly and convincingly proven
that a portion of the underpayment of tax resulting from
petitioner’s unreported law firm income for each of the years in
issue was due to fraud on the part of petitioner. Once the
Commissioner establishes that a portion of the underpayment is
attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment is treated as
attributable to fraud and subjected to a 75-percent penalty,
except with respect to any portion of the underpayment that the
taxpayer establishes is not attributable to fraud. Secs.
6653(b)(1) and (2), 6663(a) and (b).
At trial, and in his reply brief, respondent conceded that
the failure to report the $4,000 State tax refund deposited into
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011