T.C. Memo. 2001-194

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ESTATE OF HARVEY FEINSMITH, DECEASED, BETTY 

 FEINSMITH, EXECUTRIX, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 16334-99. Filed July 27, 2001.

William S. Seplowitz, for petitioner.

Robin L. Peacock and Lydia A. Branche, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

LARO, Judge: Betty Feinsmith, in her individual capacity

and as executrix of the Estate of Harvey Feinsmith, Deceased (the

estate), petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent’s

determination as to the 1983 and 1984 Federal income taxes of her

and her deceased husband, Harvey Feinsmith (Mr. Feinsmith). 
- 2 -

Respondent determined that Mr. Feinsmith was liable under section

6653(b)(1) for $5,812 and $17,476 in additions to his 1983 and

1984 taxes, respectively. Respondent also determined that Mr.

Feinsmith was liable for time-sensitive additions to those taxes

under section 6653(b)(2). Respondent determined no deficiency as

to Betty Feinsmith in her individual capacity.

Following the Court’s dismissal of Betty Feinsmith in her

individual capacity for lack of jurisdiction, and our amendment

to the caption to reflect the same, we must determine whether the

estate is liable for the additions to tax. We hold it is not. 

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code applicable to

the relevant years. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules

of Practice and Procedure. Some dollar amounts have been

rounded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some facts have been stipulated. We incorporate herein by

this reference the parties’ stipulation of facts and the exhibits

submitted therewith. We find the stipulated facts accordingly. 

Mr. Feinsmith, whose education lasted through high school and

possibly 1 year of college, died on June 6, 1995, at the age of

68. His widow, Betty Feinsmith, is the executrix of the estate. 

She resided in Deal, New Jersey, when the petition was filed.

Mr. Feinsmith and Betty Feinsmith filed joint 1983 and 1984

Federal income tax returns. They filed their 1983 return on or
- 3 -

about October 5, 1984. They filed their 1984 return on or about

October 17, 1985. Randy Hall, Inc. (Randy Hall), a corporation

in which petitioner was a shareholder, filed its 1982 Federal

income tax return for its fiscal year ended January 31, 1983, on

April 30, 1983. Randy Hall filed its 1983 Federal income tax

return for its fiscal year ended January 31, 1984, on April 28,

1984.

Randy Hall manufactured T-shirts and ladies sportswear. 

During the subject years, its common stock was owned equally by

Mr. Feinsmith, Carl Perry (Mr. Perry), and Donald Rosenthal (Mr.

Rosenthal). Mr. Feinsmith served as its president and production

manager. Mr. Perry served as its secretary/treasurer and

salesman. Mr. Rosenthal served as its vice president and

designer. Randy Hall’s shareholders during its fiscal year ended

January 31, 1981, were Mr. Perry, Mr. Rosenthal, and Samuel

Mandel (Mr. Mandel). Mr. Feinsmith replaced Mr. Mandel as a

Randy Hall shareholder towards the end of 1982 and began working

for Randy Hall at that time. Mr. Mandel retired at the same

time.

During its fiscal years ended January 31, 1981, 1983, and

1984, Randy Hall participated in a massive false invoice scheme

(the scheme) in which it bought invoices listing falsely that it

purchased yarn from various vendors. The scheme was promoted by

Schnejer Zalman Gurary, Nochum Sternberg (Gurary’s son-in-law),
- 4 -

and Esther Sternberg (Nochum’s wife) (collectively, the

promoters). Under the scheme, the promoters sold invoices to

corporations in the garment industry, falsely reflecting that one

of the promoters’ companies had sold yarn to the invoicepurchasing company. Principals of the invoice-purchasing

companies provided the promoters with company checks in the

amounts of the false invoices, and the promoters returned cash to

the principals in the amount of the checks less a processing fee. 

No actual yarn was involved. The invoice-purchasing companies

included the purported cost of the nonexistent yarn in their

calculations of cost-of-goods-sold for tax purposes, fraudulently

misstating their taxable income. The principals converted some

of the cash to their personal use without declaring those funds

as income on their tax returns. Ultimately, the promoters were

convicted for their parts in the scheme, and their convictions

were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Gurary, 860 F.2d

521 (2d Cir. 1988).

Randy Hall began participating in the scheme before Mr.

Feinsmith was a Randy Hall shareholder. Mr. Mandel originally

purchased the false invoices on behalf of Randy Hall, and he did

so with the knowledge of the other two shareholders (i.e.,

Messrs. Perry and Rosenthal). Randy Hall continued to purchase

the false invoices after Mr. Mandel’s retirement. At all times,

Randy Hall paid for the false invoices by checks, and the
- 5 -

1 Although cost of goods sold is not actually a “deduction”,

the parties and many of the exhibits in evidence sometimes refer

to it as such. We do the same.

promoters returned to Randy Hall cash equal to the amount of the

checks less the commission. Randy Hall bought the invoices to

generate documentation to support an inflated cost of goods sold

deduction reported on its tax returns.1 None of the yarn

referenced in the false invoices was ever delivered to Randy

Hall.

Randy Hall issued checks to the false invoice sellers for 35

false invoices. Randy Hall required that all of these checks be

signed by two of its shareholders. The date and amount of each

of the 35 false invoices is as follows: 

Invoice Date Invoice Amount

Oct. 6, 1980 $13,328

Oct. 8, 1980 12,826

Oct. 9, 1980 10,472

 Oct. 10, 1980 14,111

 Oct. 15, 1980 8,119

 Nov. 5, 1980 17,494

 Nov. 6, 1980 6,098

 Nov. 7, 1980 8,033

 Nov. 10, 1980 10,151

 Nov. 12, 1980 16,190

 Nov. 14, 1980 13,619

 Jan. 2, 1981 11,866

 Jan. 5, 1981 14,345

 Jan. 6, 1981 8,340

 Jan. 8, 1981 15,406

 Jan. 9, 1981 13,523

 193,922 ($1 rounding error)

 Dec. 8, 1982 $15,988

 Dec. 10, 1982 13,812

 Dec. 14, 1982 16,403
- 6 -

 Dec. 17, 1982 13,319

 Jan. 10, 1983 15,477

Jan. 14, 1983 19,200

 94,199

 Dec. 2, 1983 $16,052

 Dec. 5, 1983 16,933

 Dec. 6, 1983 14,607

 Dec. 7, 1983 15,701

Dec. 9, 1983 12,831

 Dec. 12, 1983 14,644

 Dec. 16, 1983 15,255

 Dec. 20, 1983 17,231

 Dec. 27, 1983 16,344

 Jan. 4, 1984 17,363

 156,961

 Jan. 4, 1984 $17,363

 Jan. 6, 1984 16,114 

 Jan. 9, 1984 15,702

 49,179

The United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern

District of New York (U.S. Attorney’s Office) began investigating

the scheme and included Randy Hall and its shareholders within

its investigation. In connection therewith, the U.S. Attorney’s

Office proposed to Mr. Feinsmith an agreement (the cooperation

agreement) under which Mr. Feinsmith would agree with the U.S.

Attorney’s Office to cooperate in its investigation in exchange

for immunity from criminal prosecution for any offense connected

to the scheme. The U.S. Attorney’s Office proposed the agreement

to Mr. Feinsmith in order to secure his cooperation in its

investigation into the scheme. On March 29, 1985, Mr. Feinsmith

agreed to the terms of the cooperation agreement, which had been
- 7 -

2 The record does not indicate why Mr. Feinsmith agreed to

enter into the cooperation agreement. We surmise that he faced

the possibility of criminal prosecution, but whether that

prosecution would come in his capacity as Randy Hall’s president

or in his individual capacity we do not know. We do know,

however, that the assistant U.S. attorney who conducted the

investigation and drafted the cooperation agreement was unable in

this proceeding to acknowledge that Mr. Feinsmith knew at the

time of the agreement that Randy Hall’s 1982 and 1983 tax returns

contained false deductions. 

drafted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.2 In part, Mr. Feinsmith

agreed in the cooperation agreement:

that Randy Hall, Inc. will pay to the Internal Revenue

Service all federal income taxes due and owing by Randy

Hall, Inc. for the fiscal years ending January 31, 1981

to the present; and that Harvey Feinsmith will pay all

personal income taxes due and owing for the period

February 1, 1980 to the present. Mr. Feinsmith

acknowledges that Randy Hall, Inc. claimed nonexistent

and fraudulent business deductions of approximately

$337,000 on its federal income tax returns for the

years 1980 to the present; and that Harvey Feinsmith

received approximately $48,000 of income which he did

not report on his federal income tax returns for the

years 1982 to the present. Mr. Feinsmith agrees that

he will set forth in a sworn affidavit the false

invoices (including date, amount and issuing company)

that created the fraudulent business deductions and the

unreported income and will admit in the affidavit that

Randy Hall, Inc. claimed nonexistent and fraudulent

business deductions of approximately $337,000 on its

federal income tax returns for the fiscal years ending

January 31, 1981 to the present, and that Harvey

Feinsmith received approximately $48,000 of income

which he did not report on his federal income tax

returns for the years 1982 to the present. Mr.

Feinsmith further agrees to provide this affidavit to

officials of the Internal Revenue Service at this

Office’s request. Mr. Feinsmith further agrees that

Randy Hall, Inc. will file amended federal income tax

returns with the affidavit attached as an exhibit for

the fiscal years ending January 31, 1981 to the present

no later than December 31, 1985; and Mr. Feinsmith

further agrees that he will file amended personal
- 8 -

3 The total of some of the rows and columns is off by $1. 

This discrepancy is attributable to rounding.

income tax returns for the period February 1, 1980 to

the present, attaching the affidavit to the returns as

an exhibit, no later than December 31, 1985.

 

Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, Mr. Feinsmith filed

an amended 1983 personal income tax return on January 6, 1986. 

He reported on that return additional income of $31,667,

representing what he believed was his 1/3 share of Randy Hall’s

false invoice deduction attributable to its taxable year ended

January 31, 1983. Mr. Feinsmith’s 1/3 share was actually

$31,399.81. The parties agree that $31,399.81 is a constructive

dividend to Mr. Feinsmith for 1983, arising out of deductions not

allowable on Randy Hall’s 1982 corporate income tax return.

Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, Randy Hall filed an

amended 1983 return on January 7, 1986. Randy Hall reported on

that return a $49,179 increase in income resulting from its

reduction of its cost of goods sold as originally reported. 

Randy Hall acknowledged on the return that the reduction was

required because it had originally included in its cost of goods

sold computation nonexistent business deductions totaling

$337,300. Randy Hall reported that the following shareholders

had “ADDITIONAL INCOME ARISING FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED

DEDUCTIONS” in the corresponding calendar years:3
- 9 -

 Total 1981 1983 1984

Mr. Perry $112,433 $64,641 $31,400 $16,393

Mr. Rosenthal 112,433 64,641 31,400 16,393

Mr. Mandel 64,641 64,641 0 0

Mr. Feinsmith 47,793 0 31,400 16,393

 Total 337,300 193,922 94,199 49,179

Randy Hall attached to this amended return the affidavits of

Messrs. Rosenthal and Perry. Mr. Perry’s affidavit, which is

virtually verbatim with Mr. Rosenthal’s affidavit, stated as

follows:

CARL PERRY, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am the Secretary-Treasurer and a shareholder

of Randy Hall, Inc. Randy Hall, Inc. is filing amended

federal income tax returns (Form 1120) for the fiscal

years ending January 31, 1981, January 31, 1983, and

January 31, 1984. I am filing amended personal tax

returns (Form 1040) for calendar years 1981, 1983 and

1984. An original of this affidavit is being attached

to each of the above-described amended returns to

explain the purpose of the amendments and the nature of

the adjustments to income.

2. During the period for which amended returns

are being filed, Randy Hall, Inc. claimed false, nonexistent business deductions in the amount of

$337,300.28 for purported purchases which were not, in

fact, made. * * *

3. The false deductions claimed by Randy Hall,

Inc. were in the following amounts for each of the

years for which amended returns are being filed:

 Amount of False

Fiscal Year Ending Deduction 

1981 $193,922.15

1983 94,199,43

1984 49,178.70

Total: $337,300.28

4. During this same time period, and because of

the false deductions referred to above, I received a
- 10 -

total of $112,433.43 in income which I did not report

on my personal income tax returns during the period. 

The amount of additional income omitted in each of the

years for which amended returns are being filed by me

is as follows:

 Amount of 

 Year Unreported Income

 1981 $64,640.72

1983 31,399.81

1984 16,392.90

Total: $112,433.43

Randy Hall also filed an amended 1982 return in early 1986

pursuant to the cooperation agreement. On that return, Randy

Hall reported a $94,199 increase in income resulting from its

reduction of its cost of goods sold as originally reported. 

Randy Hall acknowledged on that return that the reduction was

required because it had originally included in its cost of goods

sold computation nonexistent business deductions totaling

$337,300. Randy Hall reported that its four shareholders during

the relevant time period had “ADDITIONAL INCOME ARISING FROM THE

AFOREMENTIONED DEDUCTIONS” in the amounts set forth in the

schedule shown above as to Randy Hall’s amended 1983 return. 

Randy Hall attached to its amended 1982 return the same

affidavits attached to its amended 1983 return.

Mr. Feinsmith filed an amended 1984 personal income tax

return in early 1986 (or possibly late 1985) pursuant to the

cooperation agreement. On that return, Mr. Feinsmith reported

additional income of $16,333, representing what he believed was

his 1/3 share of Randy Hall’s false invoice deduction
- 11 -

attributable to its taxable year ended January 31, 1984. His 1/3

share was actually $16,392.90. The parties agree that $16,392.90

is a constructive dividend to Mr. Feinsmith arising out of

deductions not allowable on Randy Hall’s 1983 corporate income

tax return. Mr. Feinsmith attached to his amended 1984 return an

affidavit that stated in relevant part:

HARVEY FEINSMITH, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am the President and a shareholder of Randy

Hall, Inc. Randy Hall, Inc. is filing amended federal

income tax returns (Form 1120) for the fiscal years

ending January 31, 1981, January 31, 1983, and January

31, 1984. I am filing amended personal tax returns

(Form 1040) for calendar years 1983 and 1984. An

original of this affidavit is being attached to each of

the above-described amended returns to explain the

purpose of the amendments and the nature of the

adjustments to income.

2. During the period for which amended returns

are being filed, Randy Hall, Inc. claimed false, nonexistent business deductions in the amount of

$337,300.28 for purported purchases which were not, in

fact, made. * * *

3. The false deductions claimed by Randy Hall,

Inc. were in the following amounts for each of the

years for which amended returns are being filed:

 Amount of False

Fiscal Year Ending Deduction 

1981 $193,922.15

1983 94,199,43

1984 49,178.70

Total: $337,300.28

4. During the years 1983 and 1984, and because of

the false deductions referred to above, I received a

total of $47,792.71 in income which I did not report on

my tax returns for those two years. I did not receive

any income as a result of Randy Hall, Inc.’s false
- 12 -

deductions for the fiscal year ending January 31, 1981

because I was not a shareholder for any portion of that

year.

5. The amount of additional income omitted in

each of the years for which amended returns are being

filed by me is as follows:

 Amount of 

 Year Unreported Income

1983 $31,399.81

1984 16,392.90

Total: $47,792.71

Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, Mr. Feinsmith filed a

second amended 1984 personal income tax return on September 2,

1987. On this return, Mr. Feinsmith reported that, in addition

to the income reported on his original and first amended return

for 1984, he received from Randy Hall during that year a

“Constructive Dividend” of $52,320. Mr. Feinsmith attached an

affidavit to this second amended return stating:

HARVEY FEINSMITH, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am the President and a shareholder of Randy

Hall, Inc. On or about December 31, 1985, Randy Hall,

Inc. filed amended federal income tax returns (Form

1120) for the fiscal years ending January 31, 1981,

January 31, 1983, and January 31, 1984. At the same

time, I filed amended personal tax returns (Form 1040)

for calendar years 1983 and 1984. An affidavit was

attached to each of the above-described amended returns

to explain the purpose of the amendments and the nature

of the adjustments to income.

2. During the period for which amended returns

were filed, Randy Hall, Inc. claimed false, nonexistent business deductions for purported purchases

which were not, in fact, made. At the time of filing

the amended returns, the officers of Randy Hall, Inc.

believed that the false deductions totalled
- 13 -

$337,300.28. During the years 1983 and 1984, and

because of the false deductions of $337,300.28 on the

corporate tax returns, I received a total of $47,792.71

in income which I did not report on my tax returns for

those two years, but which was reported on my amended

returns. I did not receive any income as a result of

Randy Hall, Inc.’s false deductions for the fiscal year

ending January 31, 1981 because I was not a shareholder

for any portion of that year.

3. Subsequent to the filing of these amended

returns, it came to our attention that certain

additional false deductions for non-existent purchases

had been claimed on one of the original corporate tax

returns, but these deductions had not been discovered

at the time of filing the amended returns.

4. The additional false deductions amounted to

$156,960.90, and affected the corporate tax return for

the tax year ending January 31, 1984, and my personal

return for the calendar year ended December 31, 1984. 

* * * These false deductions resulted in additional

income to me of $52,320.20 which I did not report on my

original or amended tax return but which is being

reported on my second amended return which is being

filed along with a second amended corporate return.

Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, Randy Hall filed a

second amended 1983 return on or about September 2, 1987. On

that return, Randy Hall reported a $156,961 increase in income

resulting from a reduction of cost of goods sold due to

additional false deductions and an offset to that amount by a

$206,651 net operating loss carryback from its fiscal year ended

January 31, 1987. Randy Hall attached to its second amended

return a statement which provided that it had ascertained after

filing its first amended return for that year that it had claimed

on its original 1983 return additional false deductions

aggregating $156,961. The statement provided that these
- 14 -

4 The parties agree that Randy Hall’s second amended return

overstated by $17,362.80 its income for the fiscal year ended

Jan. 31, 1984, and that Mr. Feinsmith's 1984 income from the

scheme should be reduced by $5,787.60.

deductions resulted in $156,961 of additional income that was to

be reported $52,321 by Mr. Perry, $52,320 by Mr. Rosenthal, and

$52,320 by Mr. Feinsmith. Randy Hall attached to that second

amended return the affidavits of Messrs. Feinsmith, Rosenthal,

and Perry, which read virtually verbatim. The affidavit of Mr.

Feinsmith was the one that he attached to his second amended

return for 1984.4

OPINION

We decide whether the estate is liable for the additions to

tax for fraud determined by respondent. Respondent must prove

this determination by clear and convincing evidence. Sec.

7454(a); Rule 142(b); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1113

(1983). Fraud requires a showing that the taxpayer intended to

evade a tax known or believed to be owing. Stoltzfus v. United

States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968). Here, respondent

must prove: (1) Mr. Feinsmith underpaid his taxes for each of

the subject years and (2) some part of each underpayment was due

to fraud. Respondent must also prove for purposes of section

6653(b)(2) the portion of the underpayments attributable to

fraud. See sec. 6653(b)(2); see also Cooney v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1994-50.
- 15 -

We begin our analysis with the first prong of section

6653(b)(1); i.e., whether Mr. Feinsmith underpaid his taxes in

1983 and/or 1984. Mr. Feinsmith amended his personal income tax

returns for both of those years to report additional income. 

Because those amended returns are admissions of tax

underpayments, Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 399

(1984), we hold for respondent as to this prong.

Turning to the second prong of section 6653(b)(1), i.e., the

presence of fraud, the existence of fraud is a question of fact. 

Gajewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976), affd. without

published opinion 578 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978). Fraud is never

presumed or imputed; it must be established by independent

evidence that establishes a fraudulent intent on the taxpayer's

part. Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96 (1969). Because direct

proof of a taxpayer's intent is rarely available, fraud may be

proven by circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences may

be drawn from the relevant facts. Spies v. United States,

317 U.S. 492 (1943); Stephenson v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 995

(1982), affd. 748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984).

We often rely on certain indicia of fraud to decide the

existence of fraud. The presence of several indicia is

persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud. Beaver v.

Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85, 93 (1970). The "badges of fraud"

include: (1) The filing of false documents, (2) understatement
- 16 -

of income, (2) maintenance of inadequate records, (3) implausible

or inconsistent explanations of behavior, (4) concealment of

assets, (5) failure to cooperate with tax authorities,

(6) engaging in an illegal activity, (7) attempting to conceal an

illegal activity, and (8) dealing in cash. Bradford v.

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

1984-601; Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 700 (1989).

Respondent argues that he has clearly and convincingly

proven fraud by virtue of the following claimed actions on the

part of Mr. Feinsmith: (1) That he understated his income and

the income of Randy Hall for the relevant years, (2) that he

failed to maintain adequate records for Randy Hall, including

that some of the maintained records were false invoices, (3) that

his accountant testified that Mr. Feinsmith did not tell the

accountant when the accountant prepared Mr. Feinsmith’s 1983 and

1984 personal income tax returns that he had income from the

scheme, (4) that he was engaged in the scheme, an illegal

activity, (5) that the scheme involved the use of cash, and (6)

that he was an astute businessman. Petitioner argues that

respondent has not proven fraud either clearly or convincingly. 

We agree with petitioner. We are unconvinced by the record that

Mr. Feinsmith filed either his 1983 or 1984 Federal income tax

return with the requisite intent to evade a personal Federal

income tax known or believed to be owing.
- 17 -

Respondent focuses in part on the operations of Randy Hall

to deduce that Mr. Feinsmith had the requisite fraudulent intent. 

We do not do similarly. The fact that Randy Hall may have been

involved in a fraudulent scheme to attempt to evade its Federal

income tax obligation, or that Mr. Feinsmith may have

participated in such an attempt, does not necessarily mean that

Mr. Feinsmith was involved in a scheme to attempt to evade his

Federal income tax obligation as well. Nor does the fact that

Randy Hall may have understated its income for the subject years,

or kept inadequate records, impute to Mr. Feinsmith the requisite

fraudulent intent to avoid his Federal income tax obligation. 

The fact that Randy Hall may have participated in an illegal

activity (the scheme) and that this activity involved cash also

does not establish fraud on the part of Mr. Feinsmith in his

individual capacity.

When we focus as we should on Mr. Feinsmith’s personal

income tax obligation, we are unconvinced by the record that he

filed his 1983 and/or 1984 Federal income return intending to

evade that obligation. We simply cannot find that Mr. Feinsmith

was actually involved with the scheme in his individual capacity

or that he converted any of the proceeds from the scheme to his

personal use. In fact, when Mr. Feinsmith first became

affiliated with Randy Hall, it had been participating in the

scheme for at least 2 years. We find no reliable evidence in the
- 18 -

record to suggest that Mr. Feinsmith, in his individual capacity,

was involved in the scheme either when he joined Randy Hall or at

any time thereafter. Although respondent invites the Court to

find as facts that Mr. Feinsmith was the mastermind of the scheme

as it related to Randy Hall, that he was in charge of Randy

Hall’s finances, that he handled all of the checks and cash which

passed between Randy Hall and the promoters, and that he

converted some of the cash to his personal use, we decline to do

so on the basis of the record. 

Respondent relies solely on Mr. Perry’s answer to a question

asked by respondent’s counsel at trial to support a finding that

Mr. Feinsmith personally received cash from the scheme. The

question and answer are as follows:

Q Okay. And did you know if Harvey Feinsmith

also received income back?

A Of course, we were partners, so we shared

equally.

We find Mr. Perry’s testimony unpersuasive (both as to this

point and generally overall). Mr. Perry’s testimony was vague,

uncorroborated, and sometimes inconsistent. Mr. Perry testified,

for example, that Mr. Feinsmith maintained Randy Hall’s books but

later testified that Mr. Feinsmith asked him for the books so

that Mr. Feinsmith could give them to the Government. Mr. Perry

also testified adamantly that Randy Hall’s involvement with the

scheme began with the arrival of Mr. Feinsmith but later admitted
- 19 -

5 Mr. Perry even went so far as to testify baldly that Mr.

Rosenthal had received none of the cash paid by the promoters. 

that Randy Hall’s involvement in the scheme began before that

time. Mr. Perry also testified that Mr. Feinsmith was the only

one who dealt with the promoters on behalf of Randy Hall and that

Mr. Feinsmith was the only Randy Hall shareholder who actually

knew the promoters’ identity. The record indicates that Randy

Hall purchased almost half of the false invoices before Mr.

Feinsmith joined the company and that one of the promoters was

wary that either Mr. Perry or Mr. Rosenthal would reveal the

promoters’ identity to the authorities.

We also bear in mind that Mr. Perry is an indicted criminal

who pleaded guilty to his part in the scheme. Given the

additional fact that Mr. Feinsmith was not charged in the scheme

and that Mr. Feinsmith cooperated with the investigation of the

U.S. Attorney’s Office, including on at least one occasion

secretly recording a conversation with an unidentified

individual, we view Mr. Perry as a biased witness with animosity

towards Mr. Feinsmith. In fact, Mr. Perry even indicated during

his testimony that he has ill will towards Mr. Feinsmith and that

he has an amiable, longstanding relationship with the other

shareholder, Mr. Rosenthal.5 We also note that Mr. Feinsmith,

because he is dead, is unable to rebut personally Mr. Perry’s

testimony and that Mr. Perry displayed during his testimony a

poor memory as to many facts, even acknowledging on various
- 20 -

occasions that he has trouble remembering events of the prior day

let alone events that occurred during the subject years.

For some undisclosed reason, respondent chose not to

introduce into evidence other testimony and/or exhibits to

support his proposed finding that Mr. Feinsmith actually received

cash from the scheme. Respondent could have presented the

testimony of one or more of the promoters as to which Randy Hall

shareholders they dealt with in the scheme. We understand from

the record that the promoters insisted that their identity be

known by only a limited number of individuals from each invoicepurchasing company. We are skeptical that the promoters would

have agreed to deal with Mr. Feinsmith upon his joining Randy

Hall, when at that time their identity was already known by Mr.

Perry and/or Mr. Rosenthal. Such is especially true given the

fact that the promoters knew when Mr. Feinsmith joined Randy Hall

that respondent was investigating either or both of the other

shareholders and were edgy about respondent’s learning their (the

promoters’) identity. Respondent also could have presented the

testimony of Mr. Rosenthal as to his understanding of Mr.

Feinsmith’s involvement in the scheme. Respondent also could

have introduced into evidence one or more Randy Hall checks that

were paid to the promoters for the false invoices and that were

traceable to Mr. Feinsmith; e.g., by his signature. Although the

record contains many of the false invoices, it contains none of
- 21 -

6 We also would have liked to have heard from Mr. Feinsmith

as to his understanding of his part in the scheme. For some

unexplained reason, however, respondent waited until almost 4

years after Mr. Feinsmith’s death to issue the notice of

deficiency to his estate. In fact, respondent did not issue the

notice of deficiency to the estate until more than 10 years after

the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the

promoters’ convictions.

7 We also note that the parties have stipulated that Mr.

Feinsmith’s approximately $48,000 of income is taxable to him as

“constructive dividend income * * * arising out of deductions not

allowable on the corporate tax return of Randy Hall”.

the Randy Hall checks which were given to the promoters in

consideration for those invoices.6

Nor do we read the cooperation agreement or affidavits to

support a finding of fraud. Mr. Feinsmith’s affidavits, for

example, merely state that he agrees that he received income

“because of the false deductions”. The cooperation agreement

states similarly that “the false invoices * * * created the

fraudulent business deductions and the unreported income”. None

of these documents states specifically that the income is

attributable to Mr. Feinsmith’s receipt (in either his individual

capacity or on behalf of Randy Hall) of any of the proceeds of

the scheme.7 Nor does either document indicate why Mr. Feinsmith

realized that income in the first place. The mere fact that a

closely held corporation has claimed improper deductions does not

necessarily mean that its shareholders have realized income in

the amount of the deductions. A shareholder such as Mr.

Feinsmith realizes income through a constructive distribution
- 22 -

8 Of course, a taxpayer such as Mr. Feinsmith may agree to

recognize an item as income in lieu of criminal prosecution. The

fact that he agrees to recognize that income in a year for which

a return has already been filed does not necessarily mean that he

filed that return fraudulently.

only when the corporation uses its money or property primarily to

benefit the shareholder. See Laure v. Commissioner, 70 T.C.

1087, 1108 (1978), affd. in part, revd. in part and remanded 653

F.2d 253 (6th Cir. 1981); see also Wilkof v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1978-496 (“Laure does support the proposition * * * that to

the extent that a taxpayer can show an absence of direct benefit

to himself he may escape constructive dividend treatment”), affd.

636 F.2d 1139 (6th Cir. 1981). We are unable to find that Randy

Hall used its money or property primarily to benefit Mr.

Feinsmith.8

We also do not view Mr. Feinsmith’s amended returns as

indicating that he received cash from the scheme. The fact that

Mr. Feinsmith considered the reported income attributable to the

disallowed deductions, rather than to his conversion of corporate

cash, is seen quickly from the fact that he recognized most of

that income in years other than the years in which the cash was

purportedly received by him upon conversion. A shareholder’s

conversion of cash for his or her personal use is treated as a

constructive distribution of that cash, and such a distribution

is realized by a cash basis shareholder such as Mr. Feinsmith in

the year of conversion. See secs. 301(c), 316; Truesdell v.
- 23 -

9 We also note that Mr. Feinsmith indicated explicitly in

his affidavits that his recognition of income from the scheme

rested on whether he was a Randy Hall shareholder, rather than on

whether he personally received cash from the scheme. As he

stated in his affidavits: “I did not receive any income as a

result of Randy Hall, Inc.’s false deductions for the fiscal year

ending January 31, 1981 because I was not a shareholder for any

portion of that year.”

Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1280, 1295 (1987); see also Toushin v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-171, affd. 223 F.3d 642 (7th Cir.

2000). The $31,667 recognized by Mr. Feinsmith as income for

1983 was mainly attributable to false invoices purchased in 1982. 

The $52,320 recognized by Mr. Feinsmith as income for 1984 (by

way of the second amended return) was almost entirely

attributable to false invoices purchased in 1983. Given the fact

that the purchase of the false invoices by the corporations and

the conversion of the cash by the principals appears to us to

have occurred contemporaneously, that income, were it in fact

attributable to Mr. Feinsmith’s conversion of cash, as respondent

asserts, would have been properly recognized on Mr. Feinsmith’s

personal income tax returns for 1982 and 1983, respectively. 

Moreover, Mr. Feinsmith recognized in income his portion of the

full amount of the false invoices which entered into the cost of

goods sold deductions. The Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit stated that principals participating in the scheme

converted to their personal use only part of the false invoice

amounts.9 
- 24 -

We are similarly unconvinced that Mr. Feinsmith knew that

either of his returns was fraudulent when he filed it. In order

to support a determination of fraud, respondent must prove

clearly and convincingly that Mr. Feinsmith had at the time he

filed his personal income tax returns the requisite intent to

evade taxes known or believed to be owing. As we read the

cooperation agreement and the affidavits, those documents were

carefully worded so as to speak as of the time that the documents

were prepared and not as of the time that the returns were filed. 

Those documents merely establish that Mr. Feinsmith knew about

the unreported income when the documents were prepared. They do

not establish that he knew about that income when the returns

were filed.

Moreover, as of March 29, 1985, the date of the cooperation

agreement, Mr. Feinsmith’s 1984 return had not yet been filed. 

The cooperation agreement provided explicitly that it would be

void (meaning that Mr. Feinsmith would be subject to prosecution,

including through the use of any statement or document that he

made or gave to the U.S. Attorney’s Office during its

investigation) were Mr. Feinsmith not to comply fully with the

expressed understandings of the parties thereto. One of those

understandings was that Mr. “Feinsmith must at all times give

complete, truthful and accurate information and testimony and

must not commit any further crimes whatsoever.” We find it

unlikely that Mr. Feinsmith would have intentionally omitted
- 25 -

10 We also disagree with respondent’s assertion that Mr.

Feinsmith’s intent to file a false return may be found in the

fact that he did not tell his accountant about his income from

the scheme. As discussed above, we are unable to find as a fact

that Mr. Feinsmith knew about the unreported income when he filed

his returns. Thus, he could not have told his accountant about

it beforehand. Nor do we believe that Mr. Feinsmith was as

“astute” as respondent claims.

11 We note in passing that the cooperation agreement

provided that Mr. Feinsmith would “file amended personal income

tax returns for the period February 1, 1980 to the present [i.e.,

Mar. 29, 1985]” in order to report his agreed-upon income

attributable to the scheme. We do not understand this provision

to mean that Mr. Feinsmith knew that he would be filing a

fraudulent return for 1984 and would later have to amend it. We

read this provision simply to require that Mr. Feinsmith report

on his personal income tax returns all of the agreed-upon income,

let it be by way of an amended return or by way of an original

return. In fact, whereas the cooperation agreement literally

requires that Mr. Feinsmith amend each of his returns from 1980

through 1985, he actually amended only his 1983 and 1984 returns. 

income from his 1984 return had he known of the income.10 Such

an intentional omission would have voided the cooperation

agreement and would have subjected Mr. Feinsmith to criminal

prosecution in addition to any taxes payable on the omitted

income.11 

We conclude that respondent has failed to carry his burden

of proving fraud for both of the subject years. Respondent has

failed to convince us clearly that Mr. Feinsmith was liable for

fraud in either year. 

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.