2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*268 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, JUDGE: Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions to tax, and accuracy-related penalty with respect to petitioner's Federal income taxes:
Accuracy-
Related
Additions to Tax Penalty
________________ _______
Year Deficiency 6653(b)(1)(A) 6661(a) 6653(b) 6663
____ __________ _____________ _______ _______ _______
1986 $ 104,596 1 $ 78,447 $ 26,149 --- ---
1987 56,197
1988 50,951 --- 12,737 $ 38,213 ---
1989 2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*269 64,805 --- --- --- $ 48,604
1992 8,130 --- --- --- ---
Following a trial at which neither party presented any substantive evidence relating to respondent's determinations, we must decide whether petitioner is liable for those amounts. We hold he is. Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the subject years, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner resided in New Jersey when his petition was filed.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2000, respondent moved the Court under
Petitioner is considered under
9. During each of the taxable years 1986, 1987, 1988 and
1989, the petitioner was a shareholder and officer of Console,
Wood and Curico, P.C. a law firm incorporated under the laws of
the state of New Jersey.
10. During the [sic] each of the taxable years 1986, 1987,
1988 and 1989, the petitioner followed a practice of bringing
bills for his personal expenses to the law office for payment
with checks drawn on the bank accounts of the law firm.
11. All checks in payment of these personal bills were
coded by being marked with the letter "A".
12. Checks so coded were entered in the cash disbursement
journal of the law firm and charged2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*271 to an account labeled "RPC".
13. The above practice was elicited from the petitioner
during his testimony at a court appearance where he was on trial
for insurance fraud.
14. Petitioner would meet with his accountant and
petitioner would decide the nature of the item, business or
personal, and would direct the accountant where to deduct the
items determined to [be] business.
15. All items determined to be personal by the petitioner
were charged to petitioner as additional income and reported on
his personal return.
16. Based on a review of the accountant's work papers, the
law firm's cash disbursement journal, the cancelled checks coded
with an "A", discussions with the accountant and the court
testimony of petitioner, there was an excess of personal
expenses of petitioner paid by the law firm over the amounts
reported as income by petitioner for the taxable years 1986,
1987, 1988 and 1989.
17. Petitioner's fraudulent omission of specific items of
income on his income tax2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*272 returns filed for the taxable years
1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 is a part of a four year pattern of
intent to evade taxes.
18. The petitioner understated his taxable income on his
income tax returns for the taxable years 1986, 1987, 1988 and
1989, in the amounts of $ 209,192.00, $ 145,966.00, $ 181,965.00
and $ 231,448.00, respectively.
20. The petitioner understated his income tax liabilities
on his income tax returns for the taxable years 1986, 1987, 1988
and 1989, in the amounts of $ 104,596.00, $ 56,197.00, $ 50,951.00
and $ 64,805.00, respectively.
21. A part of each deficiency in income tax for taxable
years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, is due to fraud with intent to
evade taxes.
22. Richard P. Console, the petitioner herein, is the same
person who was the defendant in the criminal case of United
States of America v. Richard P. Console (District of New
Jersey), Case Number 91-42(nhp).
23. The respondent herein is a party in privity with the
United States of America, the prosecuting2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*273 party in the aforesaid
criminal case in which the petitioner herein was the defendant.
24. The indictment filed on January 10, 1991, in said
criminal case sets forth the following charge against the
defendant, the petitioner herein:
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
COUNT ONE
On or about September 8, 1987, in the District of New Jersey and
elsewhere.
RICHARD P. CONSOLE, Esq.,
the defendant, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly did attempt to
evade and defeat a large part of the income tax due and owing by
himself to the United States of America for the calendar year
1986, by preparing and causing to be prepared, signing and
causing to be signed and filing and causing to be filed with the
Internal Revenue Service, a false and fraudulent 1986 United
States Individual Income Tax Return on behalf of himself,
wherein it was stated that his taxable income for the said
calendar year was $ 145,565.00 and that the income tax due and
owing to the2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*274 United States of America $ 57,018.00, whereas the
defendant then and there well knew that his taxable income for
the said calendar year was approximately $ 354,756.78 upon which
taxable income there was then due and owing to the United States
of America an income tax of approximately $ 161,613.89.
In violation of Title
and Title
25. The petitioner on August 22, 1995, entered a plea of
guilty to the charge set forth against him in said indictment.
* * *
26. On September 6, 1995, the United States District Court
entered its judgment pursuant to said plea. * * *
27. Among the issues of fact determined in the aforesaid
criminal case was whether Richard P. Console, the defendant
therein, and the petitioner herein, did in fact willfully file a
false and fraudulent income tax return for the taxable year with
intent to evade and defeat income tax, and whether he did in
fact by such means understate2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*275 a part of the income tax due and
owing by him to United States of America for said year.
28. During the 1992 tax year, petitioner received $ 0.00
income on his purported Schedule C business and listed expenses
of $ 563,871.00 including $ 554,861.00 in attorneys's fees.
29. The $ 554,861.00 in attorney's fees was paid for his
criminal defense in the action described in paragraphs 22
through 26 above and in a prior criminal matter described in
paragraph 13 above.
DISCUSSION
We address first whether petitioner is liable for the deficiencies and additions to tax under
As to respondent's determination of these deficiencies and additions thereto, petitioner relies solely on his argument that the notice of deficiency is invalid because, he alleges, respondent2001 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 268">*277 impermissibly used grand jury material during the audit underlying the notice of deficiency. At trial, petitioner called two witnesses to attempt to prove this allegation. The first witness was a special agent in respondent's Criminal Investigation Division. He was involved with petitioner's grand jury investigation and testified that he had prepared reports and computations of petitioner's tax liabilities exclusively for use in the grand jury proceedings. He also testified that he was unaware that any of those reports or computations were used by respondent in the course of the audit underlying the notice of deficiency. The second witness, one of respondent's revenue agents, provided no testimony that would support petitioner's allegation.
On the record before us, we are unpersuaded that respondent relied on any grand jury material in the formulation of the notice of deficiency. We hold that the notice of deficiency is valid. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination as to the deficiencies and the additions to tax under
We turn next to respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for the additions to tax for fraud under
Fraud denotes intentional wrongdoing on the part of the taxpayer with the specific purpose of evading a tax known or believed to be owing.
It is well settled in this Court that the Commissioner may establish fraud by relying upon matters deemed admitted under
Decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Additionally,
1. An understatement is substantial if it exceeds the greater of: (a) 10 percent of the tax required to be reported on the return or (b) $ 5,000.
2. If respondent establishes that some part of the underpayment for a year is due to fraud, all of the underpayment is deemed attributable to fraud unless petitioner proves otherwise. See