- 83 -
or otherwise prevent the collection of taxes. Rowlee v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. at 1123.
Respondent’s initial contact came from Japanese tax
authorities. When respondent’s agents made direct inquiries to
petitioner about the source of the funds advanced and the identity
of the owners of NCPL and TPPL, petitioner refused to disclose
information based upon the confidentiality agreement he signed
with NCPL. The confidentiality agreement provided that petitioner
had to keep all company “Information” confidential. However, when
the party requesting information and documentation was a
governmental authority, the confidentiality agreement did not
prohibit petitioner from complying with its requests. It only
required petitioner to give NCPL prompt notice and to cooperate
with it to obtain a protective order or other reliable assurance
that any company information unrelated to petitioner would be kept
confidential. Even when respondent provided petitioner the
opportunity to verify that he did not have bank accounts or
signatory authority over bank accounts in Hong Kong, he refused to
sign the consent directives, claiming he so refused under
instructions from his employer pursuant to the confidentiality
agreement. There is no corroborating documentation from NCPL to
that effect.
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008