T.C. Memo. 2005-181

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SHEILA D. CLINKSCALE & JANTZ S. CLINKSCALE, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 6886-01. Filed July 25, 2005. 

Robert J. Fedor, Jr., for petitioner Sheila D. Clinkscale.

Jantz S. Clinkscale, pro se.

John M. Tkacik, Jr., for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: This case is before the Court on respondent’s motion for summary judgment (respondent’s motion) against

petitioner Jantz S. Clinkscale (Mr. Clinkscale) for the taxable
- 2 -

1Respondent’s motion pertains only to Mr. Clinkscale. That

is because petitioner Sheila D. Clinkscale (Ms. Clinkscale) and

respondent filed a stipulation of settled issues in which Ms.

Clinkscale agreed to all of the determinations for the taxable

years 1994, 1995, and 1996 that respondent made in the notice of

deficiency (notice) that respondent issued to her and Mr.

Clinkscale. For convenience, we shall hereinafter generally

refer only to Mr. Clinkscale.

2All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice

and Procedure. All section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years at issue.

years 1994, 1995, and 1996.1 We shall grant respondent’s motion.

Background

Pursuant to the Court’s Order issued under Rule 37(c),2 all

of the affirmative allegations in the answer are deemed admitted. 

Respondent also represents certain additional facts in respondent’s motion that Mr. Clinkscale does not dispute.

Mr. Clinkscale was incarcerated in Ashland, Kentucky, at the

time the petition in this case was filed. 

During each of the years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Mr.

Clinkscale (1) engaged in a criminal enterprise to distribute

cocaine from which he earned substantial income; (2) conducted

financial activities in currency (i.e., cash) with the intent to

evade Federal income tax (tax); (3) structured various financial

activities in an attempt to avoid Federal reporting requirements

with the intent to evade tax; and (4) failed to maintain complete

and adequate books and accounts of income-producing activities as

required by applicable provisions of the Code and the regulations
- 3 -

thereunder. 

Mr. Clinkscale and Ms. Clinkscale filed jointly tax returns

for the taxable years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. For each of

the taxable years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Mr. Clinkscale

provided incomplete and/or erroneous information to their tax

return preparers and fraudulently, with the intent to evade tax,

filed a tax return that substantially understated adjusted gross

income. Specifically, in the joint returns for the taxable years

1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Mr. Clinkscale underreported adjusted

gross income shown in such returns by $83,821.91, $101,633.41,

$250,335.10, and $325,199.43, respectively and fraudulently, with

the intent to evade tax, understated tax shown in such returns by

$19,927, $25,238, $71,385, and $107,698, respectively. 

On a date not disclosed by the record after September 2,

1998, and before February 28, 2000, a Federal grand jury in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,

Eastern Division, indicted Mr. Clinkscale for, and charged him

with, inter alia, violating (1) 21 U.S.C. section 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(A) by possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute

during the period January 1993 through at least September 2,

1998, and (2) 26 U.S.C. section 7206(1) by filing a false and

fraudulent tax return for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995,

1996, and 1997. On February 28, 2000, Mr. Clinkscale entered

into a plea agreement (Mr. Clinkscale’s plea agreement) in which
- 4 -

3Mr. Clinkscale acknowledged in Mr. Clinkscale’s plea

agreement:

15. The defendant, Jantz S. Clinkscale, * * *

acknowledge[s] that no threats, promises, or

representations have been made, nor agreements reached,

other than those set forth in this agreement, to induce

the defendant, Jantz S. Clinkscale, to plead guilty. 

This plea agreement sets forth the full and complete

terms and conditions of the agreement between

defendant, Jantz S. Clinkscale, and the United States.

* * * * * * *

17. The defendant, Jantz S. Clinkscale, as

indicated by his signature below, states that she [sic]

has read this plea agreement, has discussed it with his

attorney, has had all questions concerning the meaning

and impact of the plea agreement fully and

satisfactorily answered by his attorney, and

understands the terms of the plea agreement. 

he pleaded guilty to, inter alia, the above-described first

charge and so much of the above-described second charge as

related only to the taxable year 1997.3 Mr. Clinkscale acknowledged in Mr. Clinkscale’s plea agreement:

3. The defendant, Jantz S. Clinkscale, acknowledges that the computation of additional adjusted gross

income set forth on Attachment A to this agreement is

accurate. Defendant acknowledges his liability for

additional tax, penalties, and interest based upon the

additional adjusted gross income set forth on Attachment A.

Attachment A to Mr. Clinkscale’s plea agreement showed, inter

alia, additional adjusted gross income for the taxable years

1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 of $83,821.91, $101,633.41,

$250,335.10, and $325,199.43, respectively.

Respondent issued a notice to Mr. Clinkscale and Ms.
- 5 -

4Respondent utilized the bank deposits method in order to

reconstruct Mr. Clinkscale and Ms. Clinkscale’s adjusted gross

income for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997. 

Clinkscale in which respondent determined that Mr. Clinkscale and

Ms. Clinkscale underreported adjusted gross income for the

taxable years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 by $83,822, $101,633,

$250,335, and $325,199, respectively,4 and that they have deficiencies in tax for those years of $19,927, $25,238, $71,385, and

$107,698, respectively. Respondent also determined in the notice

that Mr. Clinkscale and Ms. Clinkscale are liable for the taxable

years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 for fraud penalties under

section 6663(a) of $14,945.25, $18,928.50, $53,538.75, and

$80,773.50, respectively. 

The petition filed in this case alleged:

1. Petitioner(s) disagree(s) with the tax deficiency(ies) for the year(s) 1994, 95, 96 as set forth

in the NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY dated April 12, 2001 * * *

* * * * * * *

3. Petitioner(s) dispute(s) the following:

 Year

Amount of Deficiency

 Disputed 

Addition to Tax 

(Penalty) if any,

 Disputed 

 1994 All total All total

1995 All total All total

1996 All total All total

4. * * * As set forth in plea agreement, all

taxes from 1994, 95 96 have been dismissed only 1997 is

in question. Appeals are in concerning 1997 and await-
- 6 -

ing judgement. At that time final, if any, taxes &

penalties due will be assesed. (Please refer to The

United States District Court for the Northern District

of Ohio Eastern Division Case No 99-00368) [Reproduced

literally.]

 

Discussion

Respondent’s motion pertains to the taxable years 1994,

1995, and 1996. The notice that respondent issued to Mr.

Clinkscale and Ms. Clinkscale also made determinations for the

taxable year 1997. We conclude that the petition filed in this

case placed in issue only the taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996 

and that the taxable year 1997 is not before the Court. See,

e.g., O’Neil v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 105 (1976). 

The Court may grant summary judgment where there is no

genuine issue of material fact and a decision may be rendered as

a matter of law. Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner,

98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). 

All of the facts on which respondent relies in respondent’s

motion have been deemed admitted and/or not disputed. The facts

deemed admitted include the material facts on which we may

proceed to resolve the issues in respondent’s motion, including

the issue relating to the fraud penalties under section 6663(a),

see, e.g., Doncaster v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 334, 337 (1981). 

We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact

regarding the issues raised in respondent’s motion.

The Court gave Mr. Clinkscale ample opportunity to inform
- 7 -

5The petition alleged that “as set forth in plea agreement,

all taxes from 1994, 95 and 96 have been dismissed”. It is not

clear to us what is meant by that allegation. 

the Court in writing why he believes that respondent’s motion

should be denied. He failed to do so.5

With respect to respondent’s determinations that Mr.

Clinkscale has a deficiency in tax for each of the taxable years

1994, 1995, and 1996, on the record presented, we sustain those

determinations.

With respect to respondent’s determinations that Mr.

Clinkscale is liable for the fraud penalty under section 6663(a)

for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996, section

6663(a) imposes a penalty equal to 75 percent of the portion of

any underpayment that is attributable to fraud. For purposes of

section 6663(a), if the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commissioner) establishes that any portion of an underpayment is

attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment is to be treated

as attributable to fraud, except with respect to any portion of

the underpayment that the taxpayer establishes by a preponderance

of the evidence is not attributable to fraud. Sec. 6663(b). In

order for the fraud penalty to apply, the Commissioner must prove

by clear and convincing evidence, sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b), that

an underpayment exists and that some portion of such underpayment

is attributable to fraud. Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.

202, 210 (1992). 
- 8 -

6Mr. Clinkscale acknowledged in Mr. Clinkscale’s plea

agreement that the computation of additional adjusted gross

income for, inter alia, taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996 set

forth in Attachment A to Mr. Clinkscale’s plea agreement is

accurate and that he is liable for such years for additional tax,

penalties, and interest based upon such additional adjusted gross

income. Attachment A to Mr. Clinkscale’s plea agreement showed,

inter alia, additional adjusted gross income for the taxable

years 1994, 1995, and 1996 of $83,821.91, $101,633.41, and

$250,335.10, respectively. The respective amounts of adjusted

gross income for those years shown in Attachment A to Mr.

Clinkscale’s plea agreement are the same as the respective

amounts (rounded to the nearest dollar) of adjusted gross income

that respondent determined in the notice Mr. Clinkscale

underreported for those years. The respective amounts of

additional tax for the taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996 for

which Mr. Clinkscale acknowledged he is liable in Mr.

Clinkscale’s plea agreement are $19,927, $25,238, and $71,385. 

Those respective amounts are the same as the respective amounts

of the deficiencies that respondent determined in the notice for

(continued...)

To prove the existence of an underpayment, the Commissioner

may not rely on a taxpayer’s failure to carry his or her burden

of proof with respect to the underlying deficiency. Parks v.

Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 660-661 (1990); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 700 (1989). The Commissioner must prove

only that an underpayment exists, and not the precise amount of

such underpayment. DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 873

(1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, supra at 699-700. 

 The record establishes that Mr. Clinkscale and Ms.

Clinkscale filed jointly tax returns that substantially understated adjusted gross income and tax for the taxable years 1994,

1995, and 1996, respectively.6 Indeed, Mr. Clinkscale conceded
- 9 -

6(...continued)

those years.

7In petitioner’s supplemental response to respondent’s

motion, Mr. Clinkscale further stated: “But there is no specific

amount mentioned, to my knowledge, so therefore I cannot agree to

a dollar amount.” 

in Mr. Clinkscale’s supplemental response to respondent’s motion

that “If the respondent is merely stating that they are owed

something, then I concede.”7

On the instant record, we find that respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence that there was an underpayment of Mr. Clinkscale’s tax for each of the taxable years

1994, 1995, and 1996.

In order to prove fraudulent intent, the Commissioner must

prove by clear and convincing evidence that the taxpayer intended

to evade tax, which the taxpayer believed to be owing, by conduct

intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection

of such tax. Laurins v. Commissioner, 889 F.2d 910, 913 (9th

Cir. 1989), affg. Norman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-265;

Parks v. Commissioner, supra at 661. The existence of fraud is a

question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the entire

record. DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 874; Gajewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976), affd. without published opinion

578 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978). Fraud is never presumed or

imputed and should not be found in circumstances which create at

most only a suspicion. Toussaint v. Commissioner, 743 F.2d 309,
- 10 -

312 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-25; Petzoldt v.

Commissioner, supra at 699-700. Direct evidence of the requisite

fraudulent intent is seldom available. Petzoldt v. Commissioner,

supra at 699; Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983). 

Consequently, the Commissioner may prove fraud by circumstantial

evidence. Toussaint v. Commissioner, supra at 312; Rowlee v.

Commissioner, supra at 1123; see Marsellus v. Commissioner, 544

F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1977), affg. T.C. Memo. 1975-368.

The courts have identified a number of badges of fraud from

which fraudulent intent may be inferred, including (1) the

understatement of income, (2) the failure to maintain adequate

records as required by the Code and the regulations, (3) providing incomplete or erroneous information to a tax return preparer

or bookkeeper, (4) dealing in cash, (5) acts designed to conceal

income, and (6) engaging in illegal activity. See Bradford v.

Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303, 307-308 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1984-601; Ruark v. Commissioner, 449 F.2d 311, 312-313 (9th

Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-48; Niedringhaus v.

Commissioner, supra at 211. Although no single factor is necessarily sufficient to establish fraud, the existence of several

indicia constitutes persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud. 

Petzoldt v. Commissioner, supra at 700; see Bradford v. Commissioner, supra at 307. 

The record establishes that, during each of the taxable
- 11 -

years 1994, 1995, and 1996, Mr. Clinkscale (1) engaged in a

criminal enterprise to distribute cocaine from which he earned

substantial income; (2) conducted financial activities in currency (i.e., cash) with the intent to evade tax; (3) structured

various financial activities in an attempt to avoid Federal

reporting requirements with the intent to evade tax; and 

(4) failed to maintain complete and adequate books and accounts

of income-producing activities as required by applicable provisions of the Code and the regulations thereunder. The record

also establishes that, for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995,

and 1996, Mr. Clinkscale provided incomplete and/or erroneous

information to tax return preparers and fraudulently, with the

intent to evade tax, filed a tax return that substantially

understated adjusted gross income and tax.

On the instant record, we find that respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Clinkscale

intended to evade tax for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995,

and 1996, which Mr. Clinkscale believed to be owing, by conduct

intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection

of such tax.

On the record before us, we sustain respondent’s determinations that Mr. Clinkscale is liable for the fraud penalty under

section 6663(a) for each of the taxable years 1994, 1995, and

1996.
- 12 -

We have considered all of the contentions and arguments of

Mr. Clinkscale that are not discussed herein, and we find them to

be without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot. 

On the record before us, we shall grant respondent’s motion.

To reflect the foregoing,

An order granting respondent’s

motion and decision for respondent

will be entered.