2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*352 Respondent's determination of amount of petitioner's unreported income sustained. Petitioner did not establish that he was entitled to wage expense deductions greater than those allowed by respondent. Petitioner liable for
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income taxes:
Addition to Tax
Year Deficiency
1990 $ 18,735 $ 17,351
1991 15,722 17,194
1992 20,987 22,989
1993 19,183 19,981
1994 34,675 31,387
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner underreported gross receipts from his dental practice for taxable years 1990 through 1994 as determined by respondent; (2) whether for taxable years 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1994, petitioner substantiated his claimed wage expense deductions; and (3) whether for each year in issue, petitioner is liable for the
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*353 FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties have stipulated some of the facts, which we incorporate herein by this reference. When he petitioned the Court, petitioner resided in Abingdon, Virginia.
Petitioner's Dental Practice
From 1985 through the years in issue, petitioner was sole proprietor of his general dental practice in Abingdon, Virginia (the dental practice). The town of Abingdon, Virginia (Abingdon), required petitioner to file, on or before January 31 each year, a business license application (the application) reporting, among other things, gross receipts from the dental practice for the previous calendar year. Abingdon used this information to calculate petitioner's business license tax.
Petitioner timely filed applications reporting gross receipts from the dental practice as follows:
Year Gross Receipts
1990 $ 117,342
1991 132,300
1992 174,072
1993 150,000
1994 190,000
On each application, petitioner affirmed under penalty of perjury that the amount reported as gross receipts was "true and correct".
The Criminal Investigation
Petitioner initially failed to file Federal2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*354 income tax returns for the years 1983 through 1994. On June 15, 1996, following an investigation by respondent's Criminal Investigation Division, petitioner executed a plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to five counts of violating
Petitioner's Federal Income Tax Returns
Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, petitioner agreed to file a "true, complete and correct" Federal income tax return for each of the subject years. On2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*355 August 19, 1996, petitioner filed these Federal income tax returns. Attached to each return is a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business (Sole Proprietorship) (Schedule C), showing, among other things, gross income from the dental practice and wage expense deductions in the following amounts:
Year Gross Income Wage Expenses
1990 $ 77,524 $ 21,862
1991 103,826 28,864
1992 113,651 29,323
1993 99,809 26,849
1994 100,640 27,575
Petitioner maintained no books or records of his income and expenses. He does not know how he arrived at either the gross receipts or wage expense deductions shown on the Schedules C.
Respondent's Determinations
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner's dental practice gross income and allowable wage expense deductions were as follows:
Year Gross Income Wage Expense
1990 $ 117,342 $ 11,036
1991 132,300 14,214
1992 174,072 29,524
1993 150,000 24,332
1994 190,000 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*356 20,002
OPINION
Unreported Gross Income
Respondent determined that petitioner had unreported gross income from his dental practice, based on the excess of the amounts petitioner reported on his applications for the subject years over the amounts he reported on his delinquent Federal income tax returns. Petitioner's admissions on the applications provide at least a minimal evidentiary foundation, if any be required, supporting respondent's determinations of unreported income. Cf.
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*357 In his petition, petitioner states that respondent's determinations are in error because the "Gross receipts reported to Town of Abingdon have been determined to be incorrect." Petitioner has offered no testimony or other evidence to support this contention. Petitioner has not attempted to controvert the admissions he made, under penalties of perjury, on each application that he filed shortly after the end of each year in issue. Indeed, these contemporaneous applications seem more reliable than petitioner's Federal income tax returns (which were filed years after the fact), especially given that petitioner has admitted that he kept no books or records and has stipulated that he does not know how he arrived at the gross receipts reported on his tax returns. Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination of the amount of petitioner's unreported income.
Wage Expense Deductions
Petitioner offered no evidence to substantiate the wage expense deductions he claimed on his Federal income tax returns. Accordingly, petitioner has not established that he is entitled to wage expense deductions greater than those allowed by respondent. 4
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*358 Additions to Tax Pursuant to
Respondent has determined that petitioner is liable for
Petitioner pleaded guilty to five counts of violating
As evidenced by his admissions in the plea agreement, petitioner knew that he was required to file a Federal income tax return for each year in issue, and he willfully failed to do so until faced with the prospect of criminal prosecution. As evidenced by the applications he filed with Abingdon, petitioner was aware that he had substantial gross income from his dental practice. When petitioner finally did file tax returns for the years in issue, he understated his aggregate gross income by approximately $ 268,264. Petitioner maintained no books and records of his income and expenses. According to undisputed testimony of respondent's special agent, petitioner indicated during the criminal investigation2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*360 that he had avoided investing in assets such as real estate that he believed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could seize in collection of back taxes. Instead, he invested in assets such as gold and silver bars and a Swiss annuity that he believed the IRS could not seize. Such statements are inconsistent with any good-faith misunderstanding of the tax laws that could negate fraud. Cf.
Although petitioner attended trial, he declined the opportunity to testify and failed to introduce any evidence. We draw an adverse inference from petitioner's silence and take it into account as a factor to be considered in combination with all the other evidence in the record. See
On the basis of all the evidence, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the
2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 352">*361 To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the relevant taxable years. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement, petitioner stipulated that "this plea agreement does not settle, compromise or otherwise affect in any way any federal tax, interest, civil penalty or other obligation for which I may now be, or in the future become, liable under Title 26, United States Code."↩
3. In certain circumstances, if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to ascertaining the proper tax liability, sec. 7491 places the burden of proof on respondent. See sec. 7491(a);
4. For 1992, respondent determined that petitioner is entitled to wage expense deductions greater than petitioner claimed on his 1992 Federal income tax return. This determination is not in issue.↩
5. Schedules attached to the notice of deficiency indicate that for each year in issue, respondent determined the