- 6 -
inconsistent explanations of behavior; (5) concealment of assets;
(6) failure to cooperate with tax authorities; (7) filing false
Forms W-4; (8) failure to make estimated payments; (9) dealing in
cash; (10) engaging in illegal activity; and (11) attempting to
conceal illegal activity. Bradford v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d
303, 307 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-601; Recklitis v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 910 (1988). Although no single factor
is necessarily sufficient to establish fraud, the combination of
a number of factors constitutes persuasive evidence of fraud.
See Solomon v. Commissioner, 732 F.2d 1459, 1461 (6th Cir. 1984),
affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1982-603; Miller v. Commissioner, 94
T.C. 316, 334 (1990). In addition, this list is nonexclusive.
See Miller v. Commissioner, supra at 334.
The intent to evade taxes is not an element of an offense
under section 7206(1), and thus petitioner is not estopped to
deny fraud because of his conviction. Wright v. Commissioner, 84
T.C. 636, 643 (1985). However, a conviction under 7206(1) is a
probative fact that can be considered and can be persuasive
evidence of the intent to evade tax. Stefansson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-162; Avery v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-344.
Petitioner’s section 7206(1) conviction was a result of a
plea bargain. Petitioner’s counsel suggests that this plea could
be the result of petitioner’s decision to avoid the risk of
receiving a more severe punishment if he lost at trial. No
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011