Padgett Coventry Price - Page 38

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011