- 55 -
Concerning explanations for behavior, petitioners, other
than offering a few broad, general statements, have made little
attempt to justify or illuminate the rationale underlying their
association with the Aegis system. Certain inconsistencies,
however, give us pause. Mr. Richardson at trial testified that
he had consulted with several independent tax professionals
before purchasing the Aegis trust package, but in response to a
previous interrogatory from respondent requesting identification
of persons from whom advice was secured prior to creation of the
trusts had listed only individuals connected with Aegis.
Mr. Richardson’s testimony that he became uncomfortable in late
1999 or 2000 with arguments being asserted by Aegis in
conjunction with challenges to the trust structure and began to
disengage from those positions is likewise suspect.
Mr. Morgason’s description of Mr. Richardson’s behavior during
the 2002 section 6700 investigation is to the contrary and is
corroborated by audio recordings of conferences conducted
pursuant thereto.
Concealment of income and assets is at the crux of this
litigation and requires little further discussion. The
establishment of a trust structure without economic substance, to
which income and assets are transferred for tax avoidance
purposes, has been considered by this Court to be an affirmative
indicium of fraud. Mason v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-247;
Dunlap v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-187; Brittain v.
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011