Decision will be entered under
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
WRIGHT,
Additions to Tax | |||
Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6661 | Sec. 6653 (b) |
1980 | $ 113,469 | -- | $ 64,650 |
1981 | 39,563 | -- | 28,150 |
1982 | 40,360 | $ 10,090 | 25,125 |
1983 | 19,561 | 4,890 | 9,781 |
1984 | 19,286 | 4,822 | 9,643 |
1985 | 41,813 | 10,453 | 20,907 |
1986 | 21,143 | 5,286 | 12,907 |
After concessions, the issues for decision are:
(1) Whether certain deposits to a foreign bank account constitute unreported income to petitioner. We hold that they do.
(2) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud under
(3) Whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under
(4) Whether the period of limitations has expired for assessment and collection of the deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income tax for any year at issue. With respect to taxable years 1980 through 1984, we hold that it has not. With respect to taxable years 1985 and 1986, we hold that it has.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Ozona, Florida.
Petitioner and his former spouse 2 were husband and wife throughout the years at issue. They filed joint Federal individual income tax returns for taxable years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. Despite being married, petitioner filed his 1986 Federal individual income tax return using the filing status of "head of household."
Petitioner was a practicing 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*530 dentist throughout the years at issue. During that period, both he and his former spouse were co-owners of a foreign bank account (the foreign account) located in the Bahamas. From time to time, petitioner opened subsidiary accounts within the foreign account for various investment purposes. Neither petitioner nor his former spouse made withdrawals from the foreign account prior to 1986. 3 On September 1986, petitioner opened a second foreign account with the same Bahamian bank. Unlike the first foreign account, however, petitioner was the sole owner of this second account. The first foreign account was closed in November 1986. 4
During the years at issue, petitioner made 66 deposits to the foreign account. Many intra-account transfers were also made. The aggregate annual deposits to the foreign account were as follows:
Year | Number of Deposits | Amount Deposited |
1980 | 6 | $ 202,000 |
1981 | 15 | 42,031 |
1982 | 17 | 52,016 |
1983 | 10 | 24,205 |
1984 | 5 | 17,695 |
1985 | 12 | 51,484 |
1986 | 1 | 1,096 |
More 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*531 specifically, individual deposits to the foreign account were as follows: 5
Taxable Year 1980 | |
Date | Deposits |
2/12/80 | $ 20,000.00 |
6/4/80 | 10,000.00 |
6/23/80 | 80,000.00 |
6/30/80 | 12,000.00 |
7/14/80 | 70,000.00 |
11/24/80 | 10,000.00 |
total | $ 202,000.00 |
Taxable Year 1981 | |
Date | Deposits |
5/20/81 | $ 4,000.00 |
5/28/81 | 1,500.00 |
6/9/81 | 3,874.00 |
6/29/81 | 2,425.00 |
7/14/81 | 2,300.00 |
7/22/81 | 2,400.00 |
8/*/81 | 12,505.23 |
8/21/81 | 800.00 |
8/31/81 | 2,300.00 |
9/3/81 | 1,300.00 |
9/15/81 | 1,400.00 |
9/23/81 | 1,000.00 |
9/29/81 | 3,473.** |
11/19/81 | 1,300.00 |
11/30/81 | 1,453.60 |
total | $ 42,031.** |
Taxable Year 1982 | |
Date | Deposits |
2/17/82 | $ 3,200.00 |
2/26/82 | 2,103.40 |
3/11/82 | 1,000.00 |
4/7/82 | 2,138.40 |
5/12/82 | 3,649.00 |
6/16/82 | 1,000.00 |
6/22/82 | 1,500.00 |
7/27/82 | 1,225.00 |
8/18/82 | 6,700.00 |
10/5/82 | 5,500.00 |
10/15/82 | 3,000.00 |
10/18/82 | 2,000.00 |
11/18/82 | 3,500.00 |
11/19/82 | 6,500.00 |
12/15/82 | 3,000.00 |
12/15/82 | 3,200.00 |
12/30/82 | 2,800.00 |
total | $ 52,015.80 |
Taxable Year 1983 | |
Date | Deposits |
1/5/83 | $ 2,000.00 |
3/8/83 | 2,500.00 |
5/31/83 | 2,400.00 |
6/8/83 | 1,500.00 |
*/*/83 | 3,395.00 |
*/*/83 | 2,000.00 |
*/*/83 | 4,110.00 |
*/*/83 | 3,300.00 |
11/*/83 | 3,000.00 |
11/*/83 | 2,900.00 |
total | 1 $ 27,105.00 |
Taxable Year 1984 | |
Date | Deposits |
4/19/84 | $ 2,393.00 |
4/30/84 | 2,915.20 |
5/30/84 | 4,069.30 |
6/1*/84 | 2,717.70 |
9/5/84 | 5,600.00 |
total | $ 17,695.20 |
Taxable Year 1985 | |
Date | Deposits |
1/*/85 | $ 9,340.50 |
2/*/85 | 1,049.00 |
2/*/85 | 998.25 |
2/*/85 | 931.00 |
*/*/85 | 3,428.42 |
5/3/85 | 3,388.55 |
5/24/85 | 3,183.60 |
7/1/85 | 4,517.50 |
11/14/85 | 1,235.80 |
11/14/85 | 4,444.37 |
12/12/85 | 17,289.57 |
12/12/85 | 1,677.40 |
total | $ 51,483.96 |
Taxable Year 1986 | |
Date | Deposits |
4/2/86 | $ 1096.00 |
total | $ 1096.00 |
1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*532 The account records indicate that most of the 66 deposit transactions involved the deposit of multiple checks.
During the years at issue, the foreign account earned the following amounts of interest:
Year | Interest Earned |
1980 | $ 7,503 |
1981 | 33,286 |
1982 | 33,594 |
1983 | 24,408 |
1984 | 30,539 |
1985 | 48,621 |
1986 | 36,886 |
In 1980, petitioner also realized a short-term capital gain in the amount of $ 13,117.23 from assets contained in the foreign account.
Petitioner used a professional accountant to prepare his tax returns for each year at issue. He did not, however, provide the accountant with information pertaining to the existence of the foreign account. Consequently, the accountant did not include, and petitioner did not report on his returns for any taxable year at issue, either the interest earned on the foreign account or the short-term capital gain realized in 1980. 6 Petitioner reported 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*533 the following amounts of gross income for the taxable years at issue:
Year | Gross Income |
1980 | $ 77,539 |
1981 | 70,185 |
1982 | 60,665 |
1983 | 57,343 |
1984 | 104,827 |
1985 | 55,367 |
1986 | 66,994 |
The tax returns petitioner filed for each taxable year at issue include a Schedule B. Each Schedule B specifically inquires as to whether petitioner maintained a foreign bank account at any time during the corresponding taxable year. 7 Instructions contained on each Schedule B require the answer to this inquiry to be indicated by marking a box labeled either "Yes" or "No." Petitioner left the blocks corresponding to this inquiry blank on his returns for each taxable year at issue, except years 1984 and 1985. With respect to taxable years 1984 and 1985, petitioner explicitly indicated on each Schedule B that he did not maintain a foreign bank account at any time during the year.
On October 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*534 5, 1992, petitioner, in accordance with a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to and was convicted of filing false individual income tax returns for taxable years 1985 and 1990, in violation of That on or about April 15, 1986, in the State and Eastern District of Wisconsin, [Petitioner] the defendant herein, who, during the calendar year 1985, was a resident of Franksville, Wisconsin, did willfully make and subscribe a joint federal income tax return (Form 1040) on behalf of himself and his then-wife Fern Polidori, for the calendar year 1985, which return was verified by a written declaration that it was made under the penalties of perjury, and was filed with the Internal Revenue Service, which return the defendant did not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter in the following respects: (1) The defendant falsely indicated on the return that he did not have any financial accounts in foreign countries during 1985, whereas, in fact, as the defendant well knew, he and his then-wife had an account at the Swiss Bank Corporation (Overseas) Ltd., located in Nassau, Bahamas, in which, at various times during 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*535 1985, he had deposits exceeding $ 500,000; (2) The defendant falsely indicated on the return that he and his then-wife had total income during the year 1985 of only $ 55,367.43, whereas, as the defendant well knew, he and his wife had total income substantially in excess of the amount stated because the defendant and his wife had earned substantial additional income during 1985 on their deposits at the Swiss Bank Corporation (Overseas) Ltd., Nassau, Bahamas, which income was not reported on the return; and (3) The defendant falsely indicated on the return that he and his then-wife had interest income during 1985 of only $ 450.76, whereas, as the defendant well knew, he and his wife had interest income in excess of the amount stated. All in violation of Title
Respondent determined that petitioner fraudulently omitted from income the interest on the foreign bank accounts for each taxable year at issue. She also determined that petitioner made the 66 deposits to the foreign account using unreported income, and that petitioner failed to report the short-term capital gain realized in 1980. Respondent thereafter issued the notice of deficiency, reflecting 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*536 those determinations, on November 4, 1994.
OPINION
Petitioner concedes that he failed to report gross income from both the interest earned on the foreign account and the short-term capital gain that he realized in 1980. He maintains, however, that respondent is precluded from assessment and collection of the deficiencies in and additions to tax determined in the notice of deficiency because the statute of limitations has expired for each year at issue. Respondent disagrees, contending that each limitations period remains open because petitioner filed fraudulent tax returns for the corresponding taxable years. Respondent further maintains that petitioner has not established a nontaxable source for the 66 deposits that he made to the foreign account, and, as a result, such deposits constitute unreported income taxable to him. Petitioner disagrees and contends that he has established a nontaxable source for the deposits at issue.
For reasons discussed herein, we conclude that, except as to taxable years 1985 and 1986, the statute of limitations does not preclude assessment and collection of the deficiencies in and additions to tax determined by respondent. We further conclude that petitioner 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*537 has failed to establish a nontaxable source for the 66 deposits that he made to the foreign account.
Bank deposits are prima facie evidence of income, and petitioner must show that the funds deposited into the foreign account were not obtained from a taxable source.
Apparently, petitioner fails to appreciate the extent of his burden of proof; moreover, he has fallen far short in his attempt to shift the burden of coming forward to respondent. Petitioner has indeed presented the Court with evidence suggesting that he possessed 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*538 the financial resources needed to make the 66 deposits at issue. However, despite his alleged ability to make said deposits, petitioner has not convinced the Court that the deposits were made using proceeds that he received from the real estate transactions he cites. Petitioner has simply identified a possible source of funds from which the deposits at issue may have been made. Yet merely identifying a possible source of funds does not satisfy petitioner's burden. In order to refute respondent's determination, petitioner must establish that the bank deposits at issue were made from a nontaxable source of funds.
Petitioner's testimony about his having made the deposits at issue using proceeds that he received from various real estate transactions is questionable, and we reject it as such. Although petitioner's testimony was not contradicted at trial, this Court is not required to accept a taxpayer's uncontradicted testimony if we find such testimony improbable, unreasonable, or questionable.
Furthermore, the size and frequency of the deposits at issue render petitioner's argument suspect. Of the 66 total deposits, 53, or 80 percent, were for less than $ 5,000; 34 were for less than $ 3,000. Additionally, most deposits consisted of multiple checks. This means that the denominations of the checks used to make the deposits were less than the amounts indicated in the account records as being the total amount of each transaction. 8 Petitioner has not attempted to explain this peculiar pattern of predominantly small deposits. While it is conceivable that petitioner deposited the proceeds that he allegedly received from the real estate transactions into some unidentified account, and then periodically deposited checks drawn against that account into the foreign account, we hesitate to reach this conclusion because petitioner has neither argued nor proved it. It is equally conceivable that the deposits at issue were made using a source of funds wholly unrelated to the transactions petitioner cites. All that is certain is 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*540 that (1) several real estate transactions occurred during the years at issue, and (2) 66 predominantly small deposits were made throughout the course of the 7-year period before the Court. Nothing in the record, however, other than petitioner's self-serving testimony, links these facts. While the exhibits petitioner relies upon may in fact indicate his financial ability to make the deposits at issue, they do not indicate, or even remotely suggest, that such deposits were made using proceeds derived from the transactions described in those exhibits.
By not attempting to trace the subject proceeds to a single deposit, or even a particular year, petitioner has left a hole in his argument. Tracing the proceeds from the underlying transactions to the deposits at issue should not have been a difficult task for petitioner to accomplish. Canceled checks and past bank statements might have been persuasive evidence in this regard. Petitioner's failure to provide corroborative evidence presumably in his control weighs against him.
Having rejected petitioner's questionable testimony, and given his failure to explain the size and frequency of the deposits at issue, as well as his failure to trace the proceeds derived from the real estate transactions to such deposits, we conclude that petitioner has not established that respondent's determination is erroneous. Accordingly, we resolve this issue in favor of respondent.
Respondent contends that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for civil fraud under
Respondent bears the burden of proving fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
Fraud is defined as an intentional wrongdoing designed to evade tax believed to be owing, effectuated by conduct designed to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such tax.
Fraudulent intent may be inferred from a pattern of conduct.
In order for respondent to prove fraud with respect to the taxable years at issue, she must establish by clear and convincing evidence that an underpayment of tax exists with respect to such taxable 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*544 years.
We find that respondent has satisfied this prong of her burden with respect to taxable years 1980 through 1984. Respondent, however, has not satisfied her burden with respect to the existence of an underpayment for taxable years 1985 and 1986.
As to taxable years 1980 through 1983, petitioner's stipulation that he failed to report gross income from interest on the foreign bank accounts during those years establishes that an underpayment exists with respect to each of those years. As to taxable years 1984, 1985, and 1986, however, respondent has conceded that petitioner is entitled to deductions for charitable contributions in the amounts of $ 25,132.24, $ 64,982.70, and $ 65,352.00, respectively. Accordingly, 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*545 we address those years in turn.
With respect to taxable year 1984, an underpayment of tax exists because the amount of unreported interest income conceded by petitioner exceeds the amount of the additional charitable deduction conceded by respondent.
With respect to taxable year 1985, respondent has not carried her burden in establishing the existence of an underpayment. Respondent cannot rely on petitioner's failure to establish a nontaxable source for the bank deposits discussed earlier in this opinion in order to satisfy her burden.
Respondent has also failed to establish the existence of an underpayment for taxable year 1986. As is the case for taxable year 1985, and for the same reasons, the bank deposits cannot be considered when determining whether an underpayment exists for taxable year 1986. Accordingly, because the amount of the additional charitable deduction conceded by respondent for taxable year 1986 exceeds the unreported interest income conceded by petitioner for that year, we find that respondent has not established by clear and convincing evidence that an underpayment exists for taxable year 1986.
After establishing the existence of an underpayment, the second prong of respondent's burden requires that she establish that some part of that underpayment was due to petitioner's intent to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such taxes.
The sophistication and experience of a taxpayer are relevant in determining whether fraud exists.
Consistent and substantial 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*549 understatements of income may be strong evidence of fraud.
This case involves a 7-year period during which petitioner failed to report interest earned on his foreign bank account. Moreover, the amount of unreported income for each year at issue is substantial in comparison with the amount of gross income petitioner reported for such years. The following table illustrates the omitted interest income as a percentage of petitioner's reported gross income:
Year | Percentage of Income |
1980 | 1 9.68 |
1981 | 47.43 |
1982 | 55.38 |
1983 | 42.56 |
1984 | 29.13 |
1985 | 87.82 |
1986 | 55.06 |
Such failure to report substantial amounts of income over a number of years is effective evidence of fraud.
3. Implausible or Inconsistent Explanations of Behavior.
Implausible or inconsistent explanations of behavior may be a badge of fraud.
The concealment of income or assets is an indicium of fraud.
Additionally, petitioner concealed the existence of the foreign account from his accountant. Concealment of information from an accountant is evidence of fraud.
Fraud may also be inferred when a taxpayer files false documents.
A taxpayer's incredible testimony also supports an inference of fraud.
Petitioner primarily argues that he misunderstood the income tax reporting requirements for foreign interest income. At issue here, however, is not simply a case involving a taxpayer's misunderstanding of the tax law; rather, it involves a tax evasion scheme that spans a multi-year period during which petitioner consistently and substantially understated his income. Petitioner advances a dubious argument that is more likely a belated and convenient fabrication designed to facilitate his evasion scheme 1996 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 528">*554 than a sincere claim of naivete. Coupling the consistent pattern of substantial underreporting with the previously discussed circumstances, all of which indicate an intent to conceal income, justifies the inference of fraud.
Petitioner objects to the introduction into evidence of his plea agreement, contending that it lacks relevancy and fosters a prejudicial inference. Although petitioner's conviction for willful falsification under
Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax pursuant to
Petitioner concedes that he is not entitled to an adjustment pursuant to
Respondent has established fraud against petitioner for taxable years 1980 through 1984. Accordingly, the period of limitations for assessment and collection of the tax remains open for such years.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Petitioner's former spouse, Fern M. Polidori, is not a party in this case.↩
3. The parties have stipulated that neither petitioner nor his former spouse withdrew funds from the foreign account prior to 1986. The account records, however, indicate that at least one cash withdrawal was made on September 29, 1981, in the amount of $ 300.↩
4. Throughout the remainder of this opinion, no distinction is made between these two foreign accounts.↩
5. Some pages of the account records are partially illegible, and asterisks are sued where figures could not be determined.↩
1. The parties stipulated that deposits to the foreign account in 1983 totaled $ 24,205, but a review of the account records indicates that their stipulation failed to account for the $ 2,900 deposit on 11/*/83.↩
6. Similarly, petitioner did not file a Form 90-22.1 (report of foreign bank and financial account) with regard to the foreign account for any taxable year at issue.↩
7. Respondent states on brief that petitioner's returns for 1982 and 1986 did not specifically make this inquiry; however, an examination of those returns shows respondent to be in error.↩
8. For example, the account records indicate that 17 deposits made in 1982 consisted of 35 separate checks.↩
1. Petitioner also did not report a short-term capital gain of $ 13,117.23 in 1980. The figure in the table above does not include the omitted short-term gain.↩