In this appeal Clayton M. Korecky, Jr. challenges the decision of the United States Tax Court imposing a fifty-percent civil penalty against him for tax fraud. The Tax Court found thаt Korecky had understated his tax liability for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 and that this tax deficiency was the result of fraud. On this appeal, Korecky does not challenge the judgment of tax liability. His sole contention is that the Tax Court erred in finding fraud and imposing the civil penalty. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.
Korecky, a resident of Cocoa, Florida, completed his formal education in the eighth grade. From 1962 to 1972, he owned and operated a small motel. In the mid-1960s, he began crab fishing and at first sold his catch to commercial crab processors. In 1970 Korecky started his own crab processing business on the site of his motel. This operation, Clayton’s Crab Company, was a proprietorship and initially employed one person. By the mid-1970s, this venture had grown considerably and consisted of wholesale distribution of processed crab meаt, retail sales of crab and other seafood, and sales of bait and equipment to the local crabbers who supplied him with live crab. In 1974, the company emрloyed fifteen persons.
In 1972 Korecky contracted with James Preece of Atlantic Bookkeeping to perform his bookkeeping and tax work. Preecе prepared income and expense statements from documents provided by Korecky. Korecky provided two forms of income data: unnumbered wholesаle sales invoices and monthly summaries of retail sales. Ko-recky did not furnish Preece with the retail sales register tapes and reported no income from his bait аnd equipment sales to local crabbers. Preece prepared expense statements from cancelled checks and bank statements. He alsо balanced the bank statements and prepared Korecky’s sales and income tax forms. Preece is not a certified public accountant and never performed an audit of the records and financial procedures of Korecky’s company.
For the years in question, 1972 through 1974, Korecky reported taxablе income of $9,082.64, $6,385.21 and $2,360.78 respectively. Korecky claimed a corresponding tax liability of $1,967.81, $1,694.20 and $586.04. Despite these relatively low income totals, the balances of Korecky’s business bank accounts increased by $54,-500.00 and he acquired approximately $130,000.00 in personal investments and business assets during these three years.
The Internal Rеvenue Service began an audit of Korecky’s federal income tax returns in 1975. Using the net worth method, the IRS calculated that Korecky’s actual taxable income for each year was $47,-317.26, $70,890.98 and $46,667.57. These revised taxable income totals produced tax liabilities of $11,375.24, $23,697.93 and $15,-897.87. The IRS assessed tax deficiencies of $9,407.43, $22,003.73, and $15,311.83 and imposed the fifty-percent civil fraud penalty provided by I.R.C. § 6653(b). In 1979, Korecky was charged, but acquitted of criminal tax evasion in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On Marсh 2,1981, Korecky petitioned the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency and penalty. He stipulated to the deficiency during the course of the Tax *1568 Court proceedings, but continued to challenge the fraud penalty. On February 13, 1985, the Tax Court upheld the penalties, which totaled $23,361.51.
I.R.C. § 6653(b) provides that
“If
any part of any underpayment ... of tаx required to be shown on a return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal to 50 percent of the underpayment.” The IRS bears the burden of proving fraud, which must be established by clear and convincing evidence. I.R.C. § 7454(a);
Marsellus v. Commissioner,
To sustain its fraud determination, the Tax Court found a substantial and consistent understatement of income, a failure to maintain complete and accurate records and a failure to cooperate fully with the IRS during its investigation. The court also rejected Korecky’s defenses that he was unsophisticated in financial matters and had relied exclusively on his bookkeeper. We address each of these рoints in turn.
Although a mere understatement of income does not constitute proof of fraud, this court has recognized that a “[cjonsis-tent and substantial understatement of income is by itself strong evidence of fraud.”
Merritt v. Commissioner,
The Tax Court also pointed to Kо-recky’s poor record-keeping practices. A taxpayer’s failure to maintain complete and accurate records is evidence of frаud.
See Merritt v. Commissioner,
As final evidence of fraud, the Tax Court cited Korecky’s failure to fully cooperate with the IRS during its audit. Failure to cooperate constitutes evidence of fraud.
See Estate of Granat v. Commissioner,
In defense of the accusation of fraud, Korecky contends that he was inexperienced in financial matters and that he relied on the exрertise of his bookkeeper.
See Eagle v. Commissioner,
In summary, we find that the Tax Court had sufficient evidence to support its finding of fraud. As such, the judgment of the Tax Court is AFFIRMED.
Notes
. In
Bonner v. City of Prichard,
