-6-
of the return, not to the identity of the perpetrator of the
fraud. Nor do we read the words “of the taxpayer” into the
statute to require the taxpayer to have the intent to evade his
or her own tax.4
Respondent argues, and we agree, that statutes of
limitations are strictly construed in favor of the Government.
Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 391 (1984); Lucia v.
United States, 474 F.2d 565, 570 (5th Cir. 1973). An extended
limitations period is warranted in the case of a false or
fraudulent return because of the special disadvantage to the
Commissioner in investigating these types of returns. Badaracco
v. Commissioner, supra at 398. Three years may not be sufficient
for the Commissioner to investigate or prove fraudulent intent.
Id. at 399.
We agree with respondent that the special disadvantage to
the Commissioner in investigating fraudulent returns is present
if the income tax return preparer committed the fraud that caused
the taxes on the returns to be understated. Accordingly, taking
into account our obligation to construe statutes of limitations
strictly in favor of the Government, we conclude that the
4Accountants who prepare fraudulent returns have
occasionally been convicted of tax evasion under sec. 7201 and
similar predecessor provisions. See United States v. Gordon, 242
F.2d 122, 125 (3d Cir. 1957) (accountants held liable for tax
evasion though tax intended to be evaded was not their own);
Tinkoff v. United States, 86 F.2d 868, 875-876 (7th Cir. 1936)
(same).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011