Albert M. Graham and Martha A. Graham - Page 46

                                       - 46 -                                         
          a copy of his billing records for the revenue agent because she             
          never asked him to do so.  Petitioner could have, but did not,              
          print copies of the billing records from Edgar’s computer for the           
          revenue agent.  Instead, when the revenue agent asked for his               
          billing records, petitioner said he “didn’t have any.”                      
          Petitioner falsely said that he did not know what records were on           
          Edgar’s computer, did not know how to use it, and never asked               
          anyone for help printing billing records.  He testified that a              
          computer expert helped him retrieve password-protected documents            
          from Edgar’s computer after she was fired.  Petitioner testified            
          that he used Edgar’s computer after she was fired, but he stated            
          at a deposition in 2001 that he would not have been able to point           
          out which computer was hers.                                                
               Petitioner testified that he did not know that O’Leary was             
          paying money to Edgar, even though petitioner told O’Leary to               
          send money to Edgar.  Petitioner incorrectly told the revenue               
          agent that he had told Lewellen about the Anis partnership                  
          distribution and Lewellen included it in income.                            
                    h.   Conclusion                                                   
               Respondent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that            
          petitioner underpaid tax due to fraud for 1995, 1998, and 1999.             
               3.   Items Attributable to Fraud                                       
               The entire underpayment is treated as attributable to                  
          fraud, except to the extent petitioners establish otherwise.                






Page:  Previous  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011