Charles McHan and Martha McHan - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          independent evidence.  Recklitis v. Commissioner, supra at 910;             
          Castillo v. Commissioner, supra; Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.            
          85, 92 (1970).  Because, however, direct proof of a taxpayer’s              
          intent is often not available, fraud may be proved by                       
          circumstantial evidence.  Grossman v. Commissioner, supra at 277;           
          Boyett v. Commissioner, 204 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1953), affg.            
          a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Castillo v. Commissioner,               
          supra; Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 995, 1005-1006 (1982),           
          affd. 748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984); Gajewski v. Commissioner,               
          supra at 200.  The taxpayer’s entire course of conduct may                  
          establish the requisite fraudulent intent.  Spies v. United                 
          States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943); Castillo v. Commissioner, supra;               
          Gajewski v. Commissioner, supra; Stone v. Commissioner, supra at            
          223-224.                                                                    
               Over the years, courts have developed a nonexclusive list of           
          factors that demonstrate fraudulent intent.  These “badges of               
          fraud” include:  (1) Understating income; (2) maintaining                   
          inadequate records; (3) failing to file tax returns;                        
          (4) implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior;                   
          (5) concealment of income or assets; (6) failing to cooperate               
          with tax authorities; (7) engaging in illegal activities; (8) an            
          intent to mislead which may be inferred from a pattern of                   
          conduct; (9) lack of credibility of the taxpayer’s testimony;               
          (10) filing false documents; and (11) dealing in cash.  Spies v.            






Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011