- 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 intoPage: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011