- 45 -
having Sieveke and John Gueren collect attorney’s fees owed to
petitioner and delivering them to O’Leary, who deposited those
funds in his money market account and then funneled the funds to
Edgar and back to petitioner. Petitioner told Edgar he was doing
this because he thought he was paying too much tax.
g. Giving Implausible or Inconsistent Explanations
Implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior by a
taxpayer can show fraudulent intent. Korecky v. Commissioner,
781 F.2d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1985-63;
Bradford v. Commissioner, supra at 307; Bahoric v. Commissioner,
363 F.2d 151, 153 (9th Cir. 1966), affg. T.C. Memo. 1963-333.
Many of petitioner’s explanations of his behavior were
implausible or inconsistent.
Petitioner testified inconsistently regarding the
distributions from the Anis partnership. He testified that his
children received a $47,000 distribution in 1995, which they lent
to him, but he thought the money was theirs because they were
members of the Anis partnership. He also testified that any cash
that came out of the Anis partnership in 1995 belonged to him,
that he didn’t know whether the money was received by himself or
his children, and that he chose not to be a partner in the
partnership only with respect to the parcels of real property
held by the partnership.
Petitioner’s testimony concerning Edgar’s computer records
was vague and contradictory. He testified that he did not print
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011