2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439 | Tax Ct. | 2000
2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="1" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*439 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COHEN, JUDGE: Respondent determined deficiencies, additions to tax, and penalties with respect to petitioner's Federal income tax as follows:
Additions to Tax and Penalties
_____________________________________________
Year Deficiency
____ __________ ____________ __________________ _________
1987 $ 59,607 -0- $ 44,705.79 $ 3,199.79
1988 57,101 -0- 42,825.75 3,672.94
1989 70,534 $ 52,900.50 -0- 4,770.17
1990 68,450 51,337.50 -0- 4,481.53
1991 74,079 55,559.25 -0- 4,233.69
1992 88,708 66,531.00 -0- 3,869.04
1993 69,563 52,172.25 -0- 2,914.65
Respondent also determined2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="2" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*440 an addition to tax under
Throughout these proceedings, petitioner has maintained only frivolous positions. To the extent that his voluminous submissions are intelligible, he contends that he is not a taxpayer, that his income from sale of hospital supplies is not an item of income taxable under section 61, and that the regulations promulgated under section 61 provide that only foreign income is taxable. Petitioner has maintained these positions despite having been convicted of tax evasion under
Petitioner failed to present any evidence that the amounts of income and deductions determined in the statutory notice are erroneous. He argues merely that he has been denied due process because he was not permitted at the administrative level to argue his theories that his income is not taxable. By reason2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="3" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*441 of his failure to present evidence, all issues other than the additions to tax for fraud under
BACKGROUND
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided at the Federal Prison Camp at Duluth, Minnesota.
Prior to and during the years in issue, petitioner operated a hospital supply business known as Allied Medical Associates (Allied). The business was operated out of petitioner's residence. For the years in issue, Allied received income from sales in the following amounts:
Year Amount Received
____ _______________
1987 $ 385,291.83
1988 472,287.70
1989 541,307.68
1990 557,189.48
19912000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="4" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*442 469,658.69
1992 464,070.32
1993 442,100.83
Petitioner maintained at various locations various bank accounts into which his business receipts were deposited. Some of the accounts were maintained at banks in communities distant from petitioner's residence. Petitioner used false Federal identification numbers on some of those bank accounts. Petitioner did not file income tax returns for any of the years in issue because he decided that the moneys that he received were not gross income as defined by the applicable statutes and regulations. In April 1992, petitioner purported to revoke his Social Security number.
On or about September 27, 1989, petitioner completed a residential loan application. On that application, he represented that his employer was Allied, that he had been employed on that job for 10 years, and that his base employment income was $ 15,000 per month. On or about May 6, 1993, petitioner executed a uniform residential loan application on which he represented that his employer was Allied, that he had been 14 years on the job, and that his base employment income2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="5" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*443 was $ 20,000 per month.
In approximately January 1994, the IRS commenced an investigation of petitioner. Petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and, instead, sought to obstruct the investigation. In March 1994, IRS officers and other law enforcement officials executed a search warrant at petitioner's residence. Among items seized at the residence were "accounts receivable" records, "accounts payable" records, bank records, and signed but unfiled tax returns for petitioner for 1981 and 1982. The accounts receivable and accounts payable records reflected cash receipts and expenditures. On or about February 20, 1997, petitioner and others were indicted by a Grand Jury for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The indictment charged petitioner with conspiracy to obstruct and impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code and with tax evasion under
Using the records seized at petitioner's residence, respondent calculated2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="6" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*444 the sales of Allied during the years in issue as set forth above, determined that petitioner had other unreported income, and allowed petitioner deductions for expenses appearing in the accounts payable records.
DISCUSSION
For 1987,
(1) In general. -- If any part of any underpayment (as
defined in subsection (c)) of tax required to be shown on a
return is due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an
amount equal to the sum of --
(A) 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment
which is attributable to fraud, and
(B) an amount equal to 50 percent of the interest
payable under section 6601 with respect to such portion for
the period beginning on the last day prescribed by law for
payment of such underpayment (determined without regard to
any extension) and ending on the date of the assessment of
the tax or, if earlier, the date of the payment of the tax.
For 1988, the applicable provision was in essence the same as the above
(a) Addition to the Tax. -- In case of failure --
(1) to file any return required under authority of
subchapter A of chapter 61 (other than part III thereof),
subchapter A of chapter 51 (relating to distilled spirits,
wines, and beer), or of subchapter A of chapter 52
(relating to tobacco, cigars, cigarettes, and cigarette
papers and tubes) or of subchapter A of chapter 53
(relating to machine guns and certain other firearms), on
the date prescribed therefor (determined with regard to any
extension of time for filing), unless it is shown that such
failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful
neglect, there shall be added to the amount required to be
shown as tax on such return 5 percent of the amount of such
tax if the failure is for not more than 1 month, with an
additional 5 percent for each2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" label="2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439" no-link"="" number="8" pagescheme="<span class=">2000 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439">*446 additional month or fraction
thereof during which such failure continues, not exceeding
25 percent in the aggregate;
* * * * * * *
(f) Increase in Penalty for Fraudulent Failure to File. --
If any failure to file any return is fraudulent, paragraph (1)
of subsection (a) shall be applied --
(1) by substituting "15 percent" for "5 percent" each
place it appears, and
(2) by substituting "75 percent for "25 percent".
Respondent has the burden of proving fraud. See
Respondent has proven unreported income from petitioner's business and has allowed deductions that respondent could identify. Petitioner has failed to present any evidence of additional deductions that would offset his income. See
The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the entire record. See
Over the years, courts have developed various factors, referred to as badges of fraud, that tend to establish fraud. See
It is well settled that a conviction under
Petitioner argues that he has been denied due process because he was not allowed to argue with respondent's agents at the administrative level or during their testimony in Court about his interpretation of the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code and the regulations adopted under it. It is apparent that an administrative hearing in this case would have been futile. Neither his criminal conviction nor the Court's rulings in this case (which he characterized as "ridiculous") have affected his positions. His positions were certainly not going to be accepted by the IRS.
Petitioner tried prior to and during the trial to withdraw his petition. He was advised that he could not do so. See sec. 7459(d);
Petitioner was warned before and during trial about the likelihood that a penalty would be awarded to the United States if he continued to pursue his groundless and frivolous arguments. See
Decision will be entered for respondent.