1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*309 An order granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment will be issued, and decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
FAY,
Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax | |||
Sec. | Sec. | ||
Year | Deficiency | 6651(a)(1)1 | 6654 |
1990 | $ 2,269 | $ 1,632 | $ 143 |
1991 | 27,458 | 20,357 | 1,559 |
1992 | 5,998 | 4,496 | 260 |
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*311 Petitioner worked as an insurance agent for the Prudential Life Insurance Company (Prudential) during 1990, 1991, and 1992. Prudential employed him to sell insurance and annuities to Prudential clients but did not authorize him to sell securities. In his capacity as a Prudential insurance agent, petitioner convinced Prudential clients to cancel their Prudential annuities and transfer the proceeds to another company, named Project Input, Inc., which petitioner alleged was sponsored by Prudential. 2 The Prudential clients would write a check made payable to petitioner, and in return the clients would receive an installment note. The installment note stated that it was for an investment known as Neo Genesis Paradigm, Inc. 3 Petitioner would then convert the proceeds from this transaction to his own use. Such transactions occurred on three different occasions from 1991 through 1992. Each time, petitioner targeted an elderly client.
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*312 On May 6, 1992, petitioner was charged in Denver County Court, Denver, Colorado, with theft from the elderly, fraud, and selling securities without a license. Petitioner pleaded guilty to attempted fraud and deceit in offering securities, was placed on probation for 16 years, and was ordered to pay restitution to Prudential in the amount of $ 107,000.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner did not file returns for the taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992. Respondent also determined that petitioner realized gross income for those years in the amounts of $ 20,436, $ 107,301, and $ 27,381, respectively. 4 The gross income determined by respondent resulted in deficiencies of $ 2,269, $ 27,458, and $ 5,998, for the taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992, respectively. Additionally, in the Amended Answer to Amended Petition, respondent asserted that petitioner was liable for the addition to tax for fraud under
1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*313 Petitioner filed a petition in this Court on July 11, 1994. On December 30, 1994, the case was calendared for trial during the trial session beginning on June 5, 1995.
On March 8, 1995, this Court granted the parties' first Joint Motion for Continuance and continued the case for trial from the June 5, 1995, trial session. Subsequently, on May 25, 1995, the case was again calendared for trial during the trial session beginning on October 30, 1995. On September 7, 1995, the Court granted the parties' second Joint Motion for Continuance, to allow time for petitioner's recovery from brain and spinal cord injuries. On December 6, 1995, petitioner requested an additional 90 days in which to answer Respondent's Requests for Admission (First Admission Request), which had been mailed to petitioner on October 31, 1995. This Court granted the extension of time until April 25, 1996.
Respondent's Second Requests for Admission (Second Admission Request) was mailed to petitioner on May 21, 1996. Petitioner did not answer either the First Admission Request or the Second Admission Request. Not having received a response from petitioner, respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 8, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*314 1996, asking that, based on matters deemed admitted by petitioner as set forth in respondent's requests for admission, we find petitioner liable for the deficiencies as determined by respondent in the notice of deficiency. Further, respondent asked the Court to find that respondent had met the burden of proving that petitioner fraudulently failed to file a Federal income tax return for each of the years at issue. The Court ordered a response from petitioner to respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment on or before September 9, 1996. Petitioner failed to respond to the Court's order. By order dated October 3, 1996, respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was calendared for hearing on December 2, 1996. At the hearing, no appearance by or on behalf of petitioner was made. The Court heard respondent's arguments on the Motion for Summary Judgment and took it under advisement.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.
The facts are established by the First Admission1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*316 Request and the Second Admission Request that respondent served on petitioner. Under
A.
Respondent seeks summary judgment that the deficiencies and additions to tax determined in the notice of deficiency and amended answer be sustained. The first issue is whether petitioner is liable for the deficiencies. The deficiencies are in the amounts of $ 2,269, $ 27,458, and $ 5,998 for the taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992. The deficiencies arose because petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns and report gross income for the taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992 in the amounts of $ 20,436, $ 107,301, and $ 27,381, as determined in the notice of deficiency.
B.
The second issue is whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for fraud under
The additions to tax in the case of fraud are civil sanctions provided primarily as a safeguard for the protection of the revenue and to reimburse the Government for the heavy expense of investigation and for the loss resulting from the taxpayer's fraud.
Over the years, courts have developed a number of objective factors, or "badges", that tend to establish fraud.
Respondent based the Motion for Summary Judgment on the facts set forth in respondent's requests for admission, which were deemed admitted. Matters deemed admitted pursuant to
Respondent has established through petitioner's deemed admissions that petitioner's failure to file a Federal income tax return for each of the taxable years 1990, 1991, and 1992 was fraudulent. Respondent1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 309">*321 has demonstrated petitioner's fraudulent intent by establishing "badges of fraud".
The deemed admissions establish that petitioner failed to file Federal income tax returns from taxable year 1986 through taxable year 1992. Petitioner received payroll checks and Forms W-2 from Prudential in 1990, 1991, and 1992. Petitioner also submitted a false Form W-4 to Prudential for taxable year 1990. Further, from 1991 to 1992, petitioner converted to his own use $ 107,000 that he received from elderly individuals in his capacity as a Prudential insurance agent.
To avoid summary judgment, petitioner must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and cannot rely upon mere allegations and denials in his petition.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. 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, unless otherwise indicated.↩
1. Respondent, in the Amended Answer to Amended Petition, alleged that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for fraud under
2. In fact, Prudential does not have any connection with Project Input, Inc., nor does the Colorado Secretary of State have a record of it.↩
3. Respondent's first and second requests for admission refer to Neo Genesis Paradigm, Inc. and Neo Genesis. These are references to the same entity.↩
4. Petitioner also did not file individual Federal income tax returns for the tax years 1986-89.↩