TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Robert G. & Barbara Bacon
Docket Number: 2993-97
Judge: Ruwe
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 08/15/2000
Pages: 46

CAL. n s T. C. Memo. 2000-257 UNITED STATES TAX COURT ROBERT G. BACON AND BARBARA BACON, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 2993-97. . Filed August 15, 2000. John R. Crayton, for petitioners. Richard H. Gannon, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes, an addition to'-tax, and penalties as follows: BERVED AUG 1 5 2000 . Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Deficiency Addition to Tax Sec. 6653(b)(1)2 Penalties Sec. 6663(a) $107,589 70,297 147,326 77,606 13,927 $83,609 --- --- --- --- --- $52,723 110,495 58,205 10,445 *In the notice of deficiency, respondent also determined an addition to tax for 1988 based on 50 percent of the interest due on the underpayment. However, that addition to tax was improperly determined since the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, sec. 1015(b) (2) (B), 102 Stat. 3568-3569, eliminated that addition to tax. . After concessions,¹ the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners underreported their income for each year in issue; (2) whether any part of an underpayment for each year in issue is due to fraud; and (3) whether assessment of the alleged deficiencies is barred by the statute of limitations. . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Throughout this opinion, all amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. . FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. The petitioners, Robert G. Bacon (Mr. Bacon) , and Barbara Bacon (Mrs. Bacon) , are husband 1Respondent has conceded the defici.ency for the year 1992. - 3 - and wife. At the time they filed their petition in this case, they resided in Cinnaminson, New Jersey. Mr. Bacon is a high school graduate. He briefly attended college as a part-time student where he completed courses in Accounting I and II. Mrs. Bacon is a college graduate. In 1980, Mr. Bacon purchased a bar/restaurant called the Jug Handle Inn under the name of Radtam, Inc., a corporation (Radtam). Mr. Bacon was the sole shareholder of Radtam during the years in issue. The primary source of income for the Jug Handle Inn during this time period was from the sale of food, beer, and liquor. The Jug Handle Inn also derived revenue from lottery sales. Petitioners timely filed joint Federal income tax returns for each of the years in issue. Petitioners reported adjusted gross income on their Federal income tax returns for the years in issue as follows:² Year .1988 1989 1990 1991 Total Adiusted Gross Income $44,221 90,840 97,478 99.117 331,656 '- 2See appendix A for details of reported income. During the years in issue, petitioner made deposits into their personal bank accounts in the following amounts:3 Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 . . Total Gross Deposits $843,032 530,188 1,285,386 1,149,802 3,808,408 Some of these deposits were made in the form of cash. Some of these deposits came from two of Radtam's bank accounts.4 Cash deposits and deposits from the Radtam accounts that were made into petitioners' personal bank accounts for the years in issue . were as follows: . 1988 1989 1990 . 1991 Total Cash Deposits $64,372 41,202 90,804 394,311· 590,689 Deposits from Radtam Accounts $503,855 293,313 453,688 227,543 1,478,399 3See appendix B for details of deposits to personal accounts. 4Account Nos. 600-871255 and 23 856021 3. During the years in issue, petitioners purchased seven parcels of real property in Mrs. Bacon's name as follows:5 Purchase Date Purchase Price 1. 02/23/88 2. 03/04/88 3. 03/31/89 4. 06/18/90 5. 06/29/90 6. 07/02/90 7. 10/18/90 Total 2$412,000 3585,000 195,000 425,000 530,000 134,000 250,000 2,531,000 Balance Paid at Closing Net of Loans Cash paid at Closing2 $3,167 285,000 197,017 25,000 152,285 4131,592 35,528 829,589 $3,167 --- 74,285 --- --- 530,591 5,528 113,571 2Cash amounts are included in the balance paid at closing amounts. 2During 1988, petitioners paid down a $287,069 first mortgage on this property by $283,310. See appendix C. 3Mrs. Bacon executed a $300,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on The $300, 000 purchase money note and mortgage required 36 for 36 months and the balloon payment of $288,988 was also paid by the property. monthly payments of $2,518 and a balloon payment of $288,988 at the end of the 36 months. Monthly payments of $2,518 were made by Mrs. Bacon, or on her behalf, Mrs. Bacon, or on her behalf, at the end of 36 months. See appendix C. *Part of the purchase price was paid with a check in the amount of $55,000 purchased with $17,000 in funds withdrawn from Radtam's savings account at Chemical Bank, account No. 600-871255, $28,000 in funds withdrawn from petitioners' personal savings account maintained at Chemical Bank, account No. 623503349, and a check in the amount of $10, 000 drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at the same institution. Additionally, $35, 000 of the purchase price was paid by a check drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at Barnett Bank, $5, 000 by a check drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at First Fidelity Bank, $20, 000 by a check purchased from Security Savings & Loan, tendered to the bank by petitioners on July 2, 1990, and a check in the amount of $5,000, drawn on the account of Thomas Begley, Jr. Esq., deposited in the same account earlier in 1990. in part with $19,000 in cash from funds 'Includes $10,000 in cash and $1,591 in coin deposited in the account of Burlington County Abstract Co. at closing and $19, 000 in cash tendered to Security Savings & Loan by petitioners on July 2, 1990, $20, 000 check. ($10, 000 + $1, 591 + $19, 000 = $30, 591. ) in part, to purchase a On or about October 19, 1989, petitioners paid Collective Federal Savings Bank $10,657 to modify the terms of their loan agreement on property located at 218 E. 18th Street, North Beach SSee appendix C for details. • - 6 - Haven, New Jersey. Petitioners paid with a cashier's check, which was paid for with a check drawn on the Radtam lottery account at Security Savings & Loan.' During the taxable years in issue, petitioners made the following expenditures: Year 1990 1990 1991 Total . Item Purchase Price Boston Whaler Chrysler Voyager U.S. Savings Bonds 1$15,850 26 , 500 315,000 37,350 2Paid in cash. 'Paid in cash. 2These purchases were made with a personal check written on one of . petitioners' personal accounts payable to acash". . On June 15, 1989, Mr. Bacon' s cousin, Tadeusz Ras, purchased a residence. Of the total purchase price, $50,220 was paid in cash. A check in the amount of $16, 600 was also part of the purchase money used to acquire the property. On June 15, 1989, $16, 600 was withdrawn from Radtam' s savings account at Chemical Bank.7 On June 27, 1989, Tadeusz Ras executed a mortgage on his residence in favor of Mrs. Bacon for $64,000. Beginning on or before July 1989, petitioners prepared monthly summary sheets on behalf of Radtam, which purportedly listed total deposits into its bank accounts for tihe month, breaking down the total by category such as food, sales tax, 6Account No. 23 856021 3. 7Account No. 600-871255. . beer, liquor, etc. These monthly summary sheets were furnished to petitioners' accountant who prepared Radtam's corporate tax returns. In addition to the monthly summary sheets, each month petitioners provided their accountant with corporate bank statements and a schedule of corporate disbursements. The bank statements furnished to the accountant reflected two of Radtam's accounts at Security Savings & Loan. However, Radtam also maintained a savings account at Chemical Bank' from July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1992. Before 1991, petitioners' accountant was not made aware that Radtam had a bank account with Chemical Bank. Sometime after 1991, and after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) began its investigation, petitioners started providing their accountant with monthly summary sheets listing deposits into the Chemical Bank account. Radtam reported gross receipts and taxable income on its corporate income tax returns as follows: FYE 6/30/88 FYE 6/30/89 FYE 6/30/90 FYE 6/30/91 FYE . 6/30/92 Gross Receipts Taxable Income $453,734 118,657 $684,395 (616) $868,601 12,308 $901,615 (242) $803,517 7,331 2Radtam was an S corporation in 1988 that reported thi's amount as ordinary income. "The same accountant prepared petitioners' individual Federal return for another entity owned by petitioners called Bradam. income tax returns and the corporate Federal income tax . 'Account No. 600-871255. - 8 - For purposes of preparing petitioners' Federal income tax returns, Mrs. Bacon prepared annual summaries of personal income sources and expenses relating to petitioners' real properties, which she gave to their accountant. Mrs. Bacon also provided the accountant with Forms 1099 and settlement sheets from each real estate purchase. In 1991, Mr. Bacon purchased a bar/restaurant called the Whistler's Inn under the name Bradam, Inc. (Bradam). Mr. Bacon was the sole shareholder of Bradam in 1991. The primary source of income for Whistler's Inn was from the sale of food, beer, and liquor. On or about April 17, 1991, Bradam entered into an agreement to purchase a liquor license, restrictive covenant, and equipment relating to the Whistler's Inn. At settlement, Bradam applied a - $50,000 cashier's check toward the purchase. The cashier's check was purchased with amounts withdrawn from Radtam's savings account." On or about January 6, 1992, Mr. Bacon filed an application for a VISA card listing his occupation as tavern owner of Radtam Inc. t/a Jug Handle Inn and stating that his annual salary was $299,000. Mr. Bacon reported no salary, wages, or dividends from Radtam on his income tax returns for the years in issue. "Account No. 600-871255. On July 14, 1992, both petitioners met with and were interviewed by two special agents from the IRS. During this interview, Mr. Bacon told the agents that petitioners and their children had received extensive cash gifts from Mr. Bacon's grandfather in $10,000 cash increments. According to Mr. Bacon, he received a $10,000 cash gift each year since his 18th birthday, his wife received an annual $10,000 cash gift since they have been married, and their children each received an annual $10,000 cash gift since their birth. Mr. Bacon told respondent's agents that the gifts were from his grandfather and were received through a brother-in-law and that neither petitioners nor their children had ever met their grandfather. Mr. Bacon told the agents that he was told never to tell anyone about the gifts and never to put the money in a bank. Mr. Bacon told the special agents that he may have had as much as $650,000 cash on hand at the beginning of 1988. At trial, petitioners stipulated that at the beginning of.1988, they had approximately $35,000 cash on hand. During the years in issue, petitioners did not receive any gifts, inheritances, legacies, or devises. I. Unreported Income OPINION Respondent determined deficiencies for the years in issue by using the bank deposit method. Bank deposits are prima facie evidence of income. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 869 - 10 - (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). Of course, when utilizing this method, all nontaxable sources of deposits must be taken into account. See ii. Under the bank deposits method: (1) Bank deposits are totaled; (2) nonincome deposits, redeposits, or transfers are eliminated; (3) an excess of deposits, as adjusted, over reported income is considered to be unreported income; (4) cash expenditures that did not come from deposited funds or nontaxable sources are added to the amount of underreported income; and (5) deductible expenses not accounted for in the taxpayer's return are allowed.¹¹ Using the bank deposit method, respondent determined in the notice of deficiency that petitioners understated their income for the years 1988 through 1991 in the following amounts: $362, 461 $226, 693 $500, 851 $236, 417 2 See appendix D for details of computations. 2 See appendix E for details of computations. 2 See appendix F for details of computations. * See appendix G for details of computations. . The parties have stipulated that if a bank deposit analysis is to be used, then the following adjustments must be made to respondent's bank deposit analysis in the notice of deficiency:¹² 11Petitioners have not claimed deductions in addition to what respondent has allowed. 12See appendix H for details of these adjustments. . - 11 - Mathematical errors: Less reductions for nontaxable items & credits:1 Plus cash expenditures² and debits:2 Net adjustments to statutory notice: --- $71,907 $78,361 $368,032 (284,603) (150,922) (268,424) (434,422) 32,467 173,989 49,962 75,387 (252,136) 94,974 (140,101) 8,997 2Items that reduce petitioners' taxable income. The parties have stipulated that these adjustments to respondent's bank deposit analysis are proper. 'Including personal 'Items that increase petitioners' items paid by corporation. taxable income. The parties have stipulated that these adjustments to respondent' s bank deposit analysis are proper. Respondent has submitted schedules with his brief that show petitioners' unreported income for the years in issue is as follows: . Total gross deposits: Less reductions for nontaxable items, credits,5 & reported income: . $843,032 $530,188 $1,285,386 $1,149,802 (740, 724) (560, 045) (1, 067, 222) (1, 070, 042) Plus cash expenditures' and debits:' Adjustments to taxable income: 5,447 8107, 755 351,378 '321, 521 161,451 1°379, 615 165,568 12245, 328 ¹See appendix I for details. 2See appendix J for details. 3See appendix K for details. *See appendix L for details. "Items that reduce petitioners' taxable income. The parties have stipulated that these adjustments.to respondent's bank deposit analysis are proper. 'Including personal 7In the bank deposit analysis incorporated in the statutory notice, included net salary deposits of amounts earned by Mrs. Bacon. items paid by corporation. respondent The same analysis credits petitioners with the gross amount of h'er salary rather. than the net salary included in petitioners' bank deposits. Accordingly, respondent between Mrs. Bacon's gross salary and her net salary (salary deposited). t-o petitioners' 1988 taxable income is $2,570 less than what we arrive at when subtracting the . agreed upon adjustments to the bank deposit analysis from respondent's initial computations under the bank deposit analysis. = $2,570) 8We note that respondent's proposed adjustment income from bank deposits by the difference ($362,461 - $252,136 - $107,755 increased petitioners' We note that respondent's proposed adjustment to petitioners' 1989 taxable income is $146 less than what we arrive at when subtracting the agreed upon adjustments to the bank deposit analysis from respondent's initial computations under the bank deposit analysis. $146) ($226,693 + $94,974 - $321,521 = 1°We note that respondent's proposed adjustment to petitioners' 1990 taxable income is $18, 865 more than what we arrive at when subtracting the agreed upon adjustments to the bank deposit analysis from respondent's initial computations under the bank deposit analysis. = $18,865) ($500,851 - $140,101 - $379,615 12We note that respondent's proposed adjustment to petitioners' 1991 taxable income is $86 less than what we arrive at when subtracting the agreed upon adjustments to the bank deposit analysis from respondent's initial computations under the bank deposit analysis. $86) ($236,417 + $8,997 - $245,328 = With the exceptions noted below (see infra notes 13, 14, and 15), respondent's final bank deposits analysis, as adjusted pursuant to the parties' stipulations, is supported by the facts. On the basis of stipulated facts and evidence admitted at trial, we find that petitioners had unreported income of $102,74823 in 1988, $320,661¹4 in 1989, $358,21525 in 1990, and $245,328 in . 1991. Petitioners argue that respondent's bank deposit method is fundamentally flawed. Admittedly, there have been a significant ¹³Weeliminated a $5, 007 item in respondent' s bank deposit analysis for corporate expenditures on petitioners' behalf because the proposed adjustment was not supported by the record. The omission has the effect of reducing petitioners' unreported income by $5, 007. 14We eliminated an $860 item in respondent's bank deposit analysis for corporate expenditures on petitioners' behalf because the proposed adjustment was not supported by the record. The omission has the effect of reducing petitioners' unreported income by $860. . 15We eliminated a $2,535 item in respondent's bank deposit analysis for corporate expenditures on petitioners' behalf because the proposed adjustment was not supported by the record. The omission has the effect of reducing petitioners' unreported income by $2,535. of unreported income by $18, 865. This is the amount by which respondent's final unreported income determination exceeds the amount arrived at pursuant to the stipulated adjustments to the notice of deficiency. We also reduced respondent's final computation (See supra p.11, table note 10.) - 13 - number of adjustments to respondent's bank deposit analysis, and the computations involve considerable detail. Nevertheless, the facts in the record, most of which were stipulated, support respondent's final computations as adjusted. Indeed, on brief, petitioners focus their factual dispute on only four specific matters in the bank deposit analysis. We address each of the specific factual matters that petitioners dispute. A. Cash on Hand Petitioners assert that respondent should reduce their 1988 unreported taxable income under the bank deposit analysis by $35,000. According to petitioners, the adjustment is necessary because they had $35,000 cash on hand at the beginning of the year. An adjustment to respondent's bank deposit analysis would be appropriate if petitioners had less than $35,000 at the end of the year. If petitioners started with $35,000 cash at the beginning of the year but had less than $35,000 at the end of the year, then the difference could have been nontaxable source of deposits to petitioners' bank accounts or a nontaxable source of cash expenditures by petitioners. However, Mr. Bacon testified that he kept substantial amounts of cash on hand at all times during the years in issue. Indeed, petitioners prepared a loan. application dated March 8, 1990, which reflected $35,000 cash on hand. There is no credible evidence that petitioners' cash on hand was less than $35,000 at the end of any of the years in - 14 - issue. On the basis of the record, we cannot conclude that an adjustment to respondent's bank deposit analysis is justified for cash on hand. B. Loan to Tadeusz Ras Respondent increased petitioners' 1989 unreported income under the bank deposit analysis by $64,000 due to an alleged . transfer from Mrs. Bacon to Tadeusz Ras (Mr. Ras). Petitioners argue that the alleged transfer should be eliminated from the bank deposit analysis, since no transfer ever took place. Mr. Ras is Mr. Bacon's cousin and has been continuously employed by Radtam since 1991. When Mr. Ras started working for Mr. Bacon in 1991, he was paid approximately $5 to $6 per hour. Mr. Ras cared for Mr. Bacon's grandmother before he was employed by Radtam. On June 15, 1989, Mr. Ras purchased a house. According to the settlement statement, Mr. Ras owed the seller $108,213 and satisfied this obligation with $50,220 in cash and paid the remainder with a number of checks. One of the checks used to purchase the house was in the amount of $16,600. On the day of Mr. Ras' purchase, the sum of $16,600 was withdrawn from Radtam's savings account at Chemical Bank." On June 27, 1989, Mr. Ras executed a mortgage on his residence in favor of Mrs. Bacon in the amount of $64,000. Mr. Ras testified that his grandmother, not Mrs. Bacon, "Account No. 600-871255. provided him with the money to purchase the house. When he was • - 15 - asked how his grandmother managed to accumulate $50,220 in cash, Mr. Ras was unable to provide an answer. When he was asked who issued.the checks for the remainder of the purchase price, Mr. Ras could not provide a definite answer, nor could he deny that Mr. Bacon provided him with some of the checks. When he was asked why he signed a $64,000 mortgage in favor of Mrs. Bacon if she had not lent him the money, Mr. Ras said that Mr. Bacon told him to sign and that he would sign anything that Mr. Bacon gave him. We do not find Mr. Ras' explanation to be credible. On the basis of the facts, we find that petitioners provided Mr. Ras with $64,000 and that he in turn executed a mortgage on the house in the amount of $64,000. C. Real Estate Deposits - . Petitioners argue that respondent should reduce their unreported taxable income under the bank deposit analysis by $9,000 for 1988 and $4,000 for 1990. According to petitioners, they issued checks totaling $13,000 to make deposits on unconsummated real estate transactions. This resulted, according to petitioners, in the return of $13,000 of nontaxable funds that were either redeposited or cashed. Petitioners have not established that these transactions ever took place pr that the amounts in question were returned to them. No adjustment to respondent's bank deposit analysis is - 16 - necessary for this item. D. Loans Payable to Mrs. Bacon Petitioners argue that respondent should reduce their unreported taxable income under the bank deposit analysis by $319,109. Petitioners allege that such an adjustment is necessary because in 1989 Radtam owed Mrs. Bacon $319,109. Petitioners argue that, to the extent that the bank deposit analysis indicates the underreporting of income from Radtam, petitioners should be given credit for $319,109 as being for the repayment of previous loans from Mrs. Bacon. Respondent argues that petitioners have not substantiated that Radtam owed Mrs. Bacon $319,109 in 1989. To support petitioners' contention, petitioners rely on Radtam's Federal income tax return for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1989. Page four of the income tax return included a balance sheet which listed "Mortgages, notes., bonds payable in less than 1 year" (notes payable) of $319,109. The income tax return does not identify the persons or entities to whom Radtam owed $319,109. Petitioners' C.P.A., Jerome Collins, prepared the June 30, 1989, Federal income tax return." The income tax return was filed in March of 1991. "Mr. Collins also prepared petitioners' individual Federal income tax returns for the years 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991. - 17 - Mr. Collins testified that he did not ask either Mr. Bacon . or Mrs. Bacon whether the $319,109 entry on the June 30, 1989, balance sheet was a loan payable to Mrs. Bacon. Furthermore, Mr. Collins testified that he did not see any documents that would indicate that the corporation owed Mrs. Bacon $319,109.18 Petitioners did not provide corporate minutes, loan documents, promissory notes, mortgage documents, or other documents that would substantiate their assertion. Mr. O'Malley, petitioners'new C.P.A., testified that he does . not.know how Mr. Collins arrived at the loan payable figures that appeared on Radtam's Federal income tax return for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989. Mr. O'Malley also testified that he could not obtain any information about the loans payable account. Radtam's Federal income tax returns for the fiscal years ending 1990, 1991, and 1992, were all filed.in June of 1996." ¹ªAlthough he never asked petitioners' about this, Mr. Collins testified that he thought If that were true, payments of rental Radtam owed Mrs. Bacon. amounts due from prior years would appear to be income to Mrs. Bacon in the year received. the $319,109 was rent that "Mr. Collins testified that Radtam's Federal income tax returns were not prepared or filed timely because details regarding cash disbursements were not available. these Each of income tax returns.contained a Form 8275, Disclosure Statement. The instructions to Form 8275 provide: Form 8275 is used by taxpayers and income tax return preparers to disclose items or positions, except taken contrary to a regulation, adequately disclosed on a tax return for purposes of avoiding certain penalties. the portions of the accuracy-related penalty due to those that are not otherwise The form is filed to avoid (continued...) - 18 - None of those income tax returns contained any balance sheet information.2° The lack of balance sheet information on subsequent Radtam Federal income tax returns suggests that Mr. Collins did not have sufficient detail to prepare the balance sheets and that a note payable to Mrs. Bacon never existed. The evidence does not support petitioners' assertion that Radtam owed Mrs. Bacon $319,109 in 1989, and we do not believe 19(...Continued) disregard of rules or to a substantial underpayment of income tax if the return position has a reasonable basis. the preparer penalties for understatements due to unrealistic positions or disregard of rules. It can also be used for disclosures relating to The description of the items disclosed in Part I, General Information, of the form was the same for each year. description provided was as follows: Gross receipts, Cost of Sales, Payroll and other Expenses. The The instructions for completing Part II of the form, Detailed Explanation, provide that a taxpayer's disclosure must include: the controversy affecting the tax treatment of the the relevant facts and. the nature (1) A description of of item, or (2) A concise description of by these facts. the legal issues presented The detailed explanation provided on Radtam's Federal income tax returns for its fiscal years ending 1990, 1991, and 1992 was the same for each year. The explanation provided was as follows: "Payroll, Sales and some expenses were established by other estimates and means. reconstructed or documented." Due to certain records which could not be . 2°The Federal income tax returns for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1993 and 1994, also did not contain any balance sheet information. petitioners' assertion in this regard. Thus, we find that the bank deposit analysis does not have to be adjusted for this item. II. Fraud The next issue is whether any part of the underpayment of income tax for each year in issue is due to fraud. Respondent's notice of deficiency determined that petitioners are liable for the addition to tax for fraud imposed under section 6653(b)(1)2¹ for the taxable year 1988 and penalties under section 6663(a)22 for the taxable years 1989, 1990, and 1991. Each section imposes an addition to tax or penalty equal to 75 percent of the portion of an underpayment that is attributable to fraud. Additionally, each section provides that if any portion of an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire underpayment is treated as attributable to fraud, unless the taxpayer proves that some portion of the underpayment is not due to fraud. Finally, in the case of a joint return, the fraud penalty does not apply with °2Sec. 6653(b) provides, in part: . SEC. 6653(b). Fraud.-- (1) * of In general.--If any part of any underpayment tax required to be shown on a return.is due to there shall be added to the tax an amount equal the underpayment which the portion of * * fraud, to 75 percent of is attributable to fraud. 22Sec. 6663(a) provides: SEC. 6663(a). Imposition of Penalty.--If any part of any underpayment of return is due to fraud, an amount equal to 75 percent of the porti-on of underpayment which is attributable to fraud. tax required to be shown on a there shall be added to the tax the . - 20 - respect to a spouse unless some part of the underpayment is due to fraud of such spouse. See secs. 6653(b)(3) for 1988 and 6663(c) for the years 1989, 1990, and 1991. Respondent has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that an underpayment.exists for the years.in issue and that some portion of the underpayment is due to fraud. See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 210 (1992). Consequently, respondent must establish: (1) Petitioners have underpaid their taxes for each year, and (2) some part of the underpayment is due to fraud. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 873 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). . Respondent need not prove the precise amount of the underpayment resulting from fraud but only that some portion of . the underpayment of tax for each year is due to fraud. See Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, supra at 210. A. Understatement of Income Where allegations of fraud are intertwined with unreported and indirectly reconstructed income, respondent is required to establish a likely taxable source for alleged unreported income or to disprove nontaxable sources alleged by the taxpayer. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 873. The evidence clearly establishes that the Jug Handle Inn was a likely source of unreported income. The evidence also establishes that petitioners had no nontaxable sources that could . - 21 - account for the unreported income. Mr. Bacon originally claimed to have had $650,000 in nontaxable cash gifts on hand at the beginning of 1988, which would have been a potential nontaxable source. However, at trial petitioners stipulated that they only had $35,000 cash on hand at the beginning of 1988. Petitioners . stipulated that they did not receive any gifts, inheritances, legacies, or devises. Respondent's final bank deposit analysis is based primarily on stipulated facts. The record contains clear and convincing affirmative evidence that petitioners underpaid their 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991 Federal income taxes. B. Fraudulent Intent Respondent must prove that a portion of the underpayment is attributable to the fraudulent intent of petitioners. Fraud is the intentional wrongdoing motivated by a specific purpose to evade a tax known or believed to be owing. See Stoltzfus v. United States, 398 F.2d 1002, 1004 (3d Cir. 1968). The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved upon consideration of the entire record. See Gaiewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976), affd'. without published opinion 578 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978). Fraudulent intent can seldom be established by a single act or by direct proof of the taxpayer's intention. It is usually found by surveying the taxpayer's whole course of conduct and is to be proven as any other fact from all the evidence of record - 22 - and reasonable inferences properly to be drawn therefrom. See Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96, 106 (1969). Any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal may establish an affirmative act of evasion. See Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943). The courts have relied upon a number of indicia of fraud in deciding whether an underpayment of tax is due to fraud. While no single factor is necessarily sufficient to establish fraud, the existence of several indicia is persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud. See Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 700 (1989). Respondent argues that the following factors or "badges" of fraud are present in this case: (1) A substantial.and consistent understatement of income; (2) false statements made by petitioners during their interview with respondent's agents; (3) extensive dealings in cash; (4) failure to maintain adequate records; and (5) failure to furnish their return preparer with accurate information. . 1. Substantial and Consistent Understatement of Income The consistent failure to report substantial amounts of income over a number of years, standing alone, is effective evidence of fraudulent intent. See Schwarzkopf v. Commissioner, 246 F.2d 731, 734 (3d Cir. 1957), affg. and remanding on another issue T.C. Memo. 1956-155. In this case, there is a substantial - 23 - underpayment of tax for each of the years in issue. Over the 4- year period in issue, petitioners failed to report approximately $1 million dollars of income. 2. False Statements Respondent argues that false statements made at the time petitioners were interviewed by respondent's agents are evidence of fraudulent intent. The Supreme Court has stated that an "affirmative willful attempt may be inferred from * * * any conduct, the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to . conceal." Spies v. United States, supra at 499. Making false statements to a revenue agent is evidence of fraud. See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U.S. 43, 45 (1952). When petitioners first met with respondent's special agents regarding the years in question, Mr. Bacon told them that petitioners and their children had received extensive cash gifts from Mr. Bacon's grandfather in $10,000 cash increments. According to Mr. Bacon, he received a $10,000 cash gift each year since his 18th birthday, his wife received an annual $10,000 cash gift since they have been married, and their children each received an annual $10,000 cash gift since their birth. Mr. Bacon told respondent's agents that he received the cash gifts . through a brother-in-law, that neither petitioners nor their children had ever met their grandfather, that they were told never to tell anyone about the gifts, and that they were never to put the money in the bank. Mr. Bacon told the agents that - 24 - petitioners had as much as $650,000 cash on hand at the beginning of 1988. Mr. Bacon's statement about cash on hand was false. Petitioners stipulated that at the beginning of 1988, they had approximately $35,000 cash on hand. Had Mr. Bacon's statements about cash on hand at the beginning of 1988 been true, . petitioners would have had a nontaxable source from which to make deposits during the years in issue. We can conceive of no reason for such a false statement other than to mislead the agents. We find that Mr. Bacon's statements about cash on hand during this interview were intended to mislead the agents. 3. Extensive Dealings in Cash Dealing in cash to avoid scrutiny of one's finances is a badge of fraud. See Bradford v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303, 307- 308 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-601. Petitioners made numerous and substantial cash transactions during the 4 years in issue. During this period, $590,689 in cash was deposited into petitioners' personal bank accounts and $113,571 in cash was used in the purchase of real estate.2³ All real estate purchases were in Mrs. Bacon's name, and she attended some, if not most, of the property settlements. A boat and a personal van were also • purchased for $22,350 in cash. Petitioners' extensive use of cash supports a reasonable inference that petitioners were knowingly and willfully . . attempting to understate their taxable income. 23See appendix C. 4. Failure To Maintain Adequate Records - 25 - Taxpayers are required to keep such records as are necessary for the determination of tax. See sec. 6001. The failure to keep adequate records is a badge of fraud. See Bradford v. Commissioner, supra at 307. During the years in issue, petitioners transferred $1,478,399 from two Radtam accounts into their personal bank accounts. Despite the significant transfers between Radtam's accounts and personal accounts, petitioners appear to have maintained no records of these transactions. Rather, they argue that they were unaware of the accounting problems being created and that they lacked the technical ability to keep corporate books or prepare tax returns. Petitioners also deposited $590,689 in cash into their personal bank accounts. At trial, Mr. Bacon testified he did not know the source of these significant cash deposits. While Mr. Bacon testified that he was unaware of the problems created by commingling funds, his testimony is self- serving, and we do not find him to be credible. Mr. Bacon appears to us to be an astute businessman and investor. It would have required relatively little, if any, technical ability to maintain, or hire a bookkeeper to maintain, a record of transfers between corporate and individual accounts or records of the source of petitioners' substantial cash deposits to their personal accounts. Mrs. Bacon also had a working knowledge of Radtam's books and records. Mrs. Bacon testified about the "settling" of daily cash register receipts and the recording of Radtam's income during the years in issue. Mrs. Bacon prepared disbursement summaries from Radtam's account at Security Savings & Loan, which were furnished to petitioners' accountant. While Mr. Bacon handled most of the deposits, Mrs. Bacon handled some deposits and testified that she may have handled. some large cash deposits. 5. Failure To Furnish Their Tax Return Preparer With Accurate Information The duty of filing accurate returns cannot be avoided by placing responsibility upon an agent. See American Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1100, 1116 (1957), affd. 262 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1958). Beginning on or before July 1989, petitioners prepared a monthly summary sheet on behalf of Radtam, which purportedly listed total deposits into its bank accounts for that month. These monthly summary sheets were furnished to petitioners' . accountant who prepared Radtam's corporate tax returns24. In addition to the monthly summary sheets, each month petitioners provided their accountant with corporate bank stat'ements and a schedule of corporate disbursements. 24The same accountant prepared petitioners' individual Federal tax returns. income tax returns and Bradam's corporate Federal income - 27 - The bank statements provided to petitioners' accountant were primarily for two accounts at Security Savings & Loan. Yet Radtam maintained a savings account at Chemical Bank25 from July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1992. It was not until after the . commencement of the examination by respondent that petitioners' accountant learned that Radtam had a savings account with Chemical Bank. Mrs. Bacon prepared annual summaries of personal income sources and expenses relating to petitioners' real estate, which she gave to their accountant. Mrs. Bacon also provided the accountant with Forms 1099 and settlement sheets from each real estate purchase. During the years in issue, petitioners transferred $1,478,399 from two Radtam accounts and deposited $590,689 in • cash into'their personal accounts. Despite the significant deposits into·petitioners' personal accounts, Mrs. Bacon did not disclose these deposits or provide personal bank statements to their accountant. On or about January 6, 1992, Mr. Bacon filed an application for a VISA card listing his occupation as tavern owner of Radtam Inc. t/a Jug Handle Inn and listed his annual salary as $299,000. However, Mr. Bacon never reported receiving any salary or 2sAccount No. 600-871255. - 28 - dividends from Radtam on his individual Federal income tax returns.25 After considering the entire record, we hold that respondent has met his burden of proving that some portion of petitioners' underpayment for each year in issue is attributable to fraud on the part of both Mr. and Mrs. Bacon. III. Statute of Limitations Section 6501(a) provides, generally, for a 3-year period of limitations. However, in the case of a false or fraudulent return with the intent to evade tax, the tax may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for collection of such tax may be begun . without assessment, at any time. See sec. 6501(c)(1). Where a joint Federal income tax return was filed, a finding that fraud was committed by either spouse keeps the period of limitations on assessment open with respect to both spouses. See Vannaman v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1011, 1018 (1970). . Since we have already found that the returns for the years in issue were fraudulent, it follows that the exception found in 28Mr. Bacon testified that he did not want to:confuse the income. instead had substantial rental credit card company with the fact that he did not draw a salary but On their 1991 income tax return, petitioners reported $135,000 gross rents from property located at Route 73, Cinnaminson, N.J. rented to Radtam on which the Jug Handle Inn is located). Petitioners' $65,277. Petitioners reported gross rental receipts of $368,930, rental expenses, other than depreciation of $221,217, and depreciation of $82,435 on their Schedule E, Supplemental and Loss Schedule. (the property total net rental income reported for 1991 was . Income section 6501(c) (1) applies, and the assessment of taxes for the . - 29 - years in issue is not barred. After concessions by respondent, Decision will be entered under Rule 155. - 30 - APPENDIX A . . 1988 1989 1990 1991 Income Reported on Tax Returns by Year . Wage/salary¹ $3,196 Interest income 3,286 Dividend income 1,357 Sch. D income 1,088 Pension/annuities 4,060 Social Security 5,094 Rents 228,140 IRA deduction (2,000) Adjusted gross income 44,221 $3,008 4,631 1,123 -0- 4,263 4,710 375,105 (2,000) 90,840 $2,840 9,426 1,170 -0- 4,263 5,544 476,485 (2,250) 97,478 $3,003 21,522 1,202 -0- 4,263 5,850 s65,277 (2.000) 99,117 ¹During the years in issue, the only wage or salary income from Bradam and Radtam reported by petitioners on their Federal income tax returns consisted of wages reported by Mrs. Bacon. 2Petitioners reported on Schedule E gross rental income of $136,000, rental expenses of $93,600, depreciation or depletion ($136,000 expenses of $32,917, and Radtam S earnings of $18,657. . - $93,600 - $32,917 + $18,657 = $28,140) 3Petitioners reported on Schedule E gross rental income of $232,000, depletion expenses of $41,507. $75,105). rental expenses of $115,388, and depreciation or ($232,000 - $115,388 - $41,507 = 'Petitioners reported on Schedule E gross rental income of $311,700, rental expenses of $172,150, and depreciation or depletion expenses of $63,065. $76,485) ($311,700 - $172,150 - $63,065 = sPetitioners reported on Schedule E gross rental income of $368,930, depletion expenses of $82,436. 65,277) rental expenses of $221,217, and depreciation or ($368,930 - $221,217 - $82,436 = - 31 9 O La O C) O Co O LO r-| O H O O N N O 0 LO O in O C LO 04 N O CD LO LO O CO N N Oi Co O in . - O N CD O CD rv) o O o o O Z c a 0 M U c U Ø Ø tn c c 0 -s to M -s o µ e O .c 04 o .. CO c M O O d Z 0) c -r-i O > 0 Ø U M M >i tn o C -s -,a k M s o o e e 4 O O O c O tn C -H O > 0 Ø U M M > a o -a O k ,Q p m o a e m CD o O O O U -H o '--I E v > m o W c -a O 01 O L O 04 0 O Ø M O M Z e © C O N O • o tn -H c E -H Ø > U U e c rH -H c r-i > 0 O d U N w O Z c O M O c 0 Ø W tp p -a e M c o µ e m ,C U) O e O O 0 c-1 m O p O O O s:t| c n o O e Ln o c.i H H • Ø O e d H O A U O O p c1 c µ -a e > c 5 - 32 - o o o o o o o o o o c0 E m co m o O a c c O U M v c e CQ k C p c m O • . o c ·H v v C O O O O o CQ ,:C M M O Q 4 . I i i -,a w m o O 4 Qaw e in Q -H e in a 0 Dao e -H to Lt) O Oao O o C) d e • O CQ m Z O o c e - O CQ m Z O o d e • CQ m Z C v o k k u e e o Q C v 0 C v o k 4 0 W W D e o O m00 Q U m CA O m co CO H o o •• O Ø a O 0 E O ,Q c o O co µ -H p .g a . Ø m o -H co O CD N m -H c4 W (0 3 O o44 O • O O -H ® Q to O O G O to ~d O Qa Ø W . ® o e v * O O O c N s s k o 0) y O o C C e . ,Q ® y to ,c 0 4 • N . - 33 - APPENDIX C Property Payments Terms and Payments Made 211 E. 17th Street, 1. Long Beach Township, New Jersey -- Purchased.2/23/88 The contract sales price was $412,000 and the gross amount due from Mrs. Bacon was $415,167. To finance the purchase, Mrs. Bacon paid $3,167 in cash, assumed a $287, 0692 first mortgage on the property, and secured a $124, 931 second mortgage on the property. During 1988, petitioners paid down the $287,070 first mortgage by $283,310. payments were made over an 8-month period of time, consisted of five payments,2 all drawn on petitioners' personal bank accounts. second mortgage required a single payment of $124, 931 in 1 year.³ The $124, 931 The Lots 7, 8, 13, and 2. 14, Block 304, Marco Beach Unit 9 located in Collier County, Florida. -- Purchased 3/4/88 Mrs . Bacon put down 10 percent or $58, 500 as a deposit, executed a $300, 000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on the property, and paid the balance on or before the closing.4 The $300, 000 purchase money note and mortgage required 36 monthly payments of $2, 518 and a balloon payment of $288, 988 at the end of the 36 months. on the purchase money note and mortgage were made in accordance with the terms. Payments 1 The. settlement statement indicates that the existing loan assumed is $287, 069, while the stipulation indicates that the existing loan assumed was $287.070 (after rounding). We assume that the stipulation contained a typographical error. 2 From petitioners' First Fidelity account, No. 0186161, a payment of $76,509 was made on Apr. 1, 1988; a $94,950 payment on May 1, 1988; and a $40,035 payment on June 1, 1988. account, No. 238351019, a payment of $64,311 was made on Nov. 27, 1988, and a $7, 504 payment was made on Nov. 30, 1988. From petitioners' Security Savings & Loan 3 The payment was satisfied on Feb. 21, 1989, in part by a $60,931 cashier's check drawn on petitioners' First Fidelity account and $64,000 in funds withdrawn from Radtam's savings account at Chemical bank, account No. 600-871255. * A portion of the payments, $158,375, was financed from $338,097 in . loan proceeds secured by property located at Block D-32, Lot 8, 216 E. 18th Street, North Beach Haven, NJ. The remaining $179, 722 of the loan proceeds was deposited in Radtam's account No. 23-835065-6. - 34 - 212 West Broad St., 3. and Palmyra, New Jersey, At closing, $197,017, consisting of Purchased 3/31/89 The contract sale price was $195,000. $74,285 in cash and three checks totaling $122,732, was deposited with The individual the settlement agent. check amounts are: $82,000, $21,000, and $19,732. Lot 26, Block 388, located in 4. Unit 12, Collier.County, Florida -- Purchased 6/18/90 Lot 4, Block 304, located in 5. Unit 9, Collier County, Florida -- Purchased 6/29/90 610 South Reed St., 6. Cinnaminson, New Jersey, Purchased 7/2/90 for the in part, The source of funds, $82,000 check was obtained in the form of cash withdrawals from Radtam's general and lottery accounts at the Security Savings & Loan. Additionally, $21,000 was withdrawn from Radtam's savings account at Chemical Bank5 and used to purchase a cashier's check, which was used to pay a portion of the purchase price. The property was purchased with $25,000 in personal purchase money mortgage was incurred. funds and a $400,000 The purchase price was $530,000 and the total amount due from buyer was $533,896. At closing, Mrs. Bacon provided $152,285, and the principal amountof the new loan was $380,000. Inc., was the The property was paid for with $10,000 in cash, $1,592 in coin, and five checks totaling $120,000. Mr. Bacon, as president of Radtam, source of the $11,592 in cash and coin. The source of the five, checks are as follows: First, a check for $55,000 was purchased with $17,000 in funds withdrawn from the Radtam 600 account, $28,000 in funds withdrawn from petitioners' personal savings account maintained at the same institution,' and a $10,000 check drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at the same institution.. Second, $35,000 of the 5 Account No. 600-871255. 6 Account No. 623503349. - 35 - . purchase price was paid by check drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at Barnett Bank. Third, $5,000 · of the purchase price was paid by check drawn on petitioners' personal checking account at First Fidelity Bank. Fourth, a $20,000 check purchased from Security Savings & Loan, in part with $19, 000 in cash tendered to the bank by petitioners on July 2, 1990, and a $5, 000 check, drawn on the account of Thomas Begley, Jr., Esq., from funds deposited in the same account earlier in the year. . . 407 North Canal St., Mrs. Bacon deposited $35,528 at 7. Cinnaminson, New Jersey, closing for the property. Purchased 10/18/90 The deposit consisted of $5, 528 in cash and a check for $30,000. check was purchased with a check drawn on petitioners' Chemical Bank account." The $30,0007 cashier's 7 The stipulation incorrectly refers to property located at 417 North Canal Avenue when, in fact, the property is located at 407 North Canal .Avenue. a Account No. 00506140-3. - 36 - APPENDIX D 1988 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Bank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Total gross deposits Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 Less: a. Redeposited items, transfers, checks to cash b. Nontaxable items c. Repayment to corporation Equals: Net deposits · Less: a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Schedule D per return e. Pension/annuities f. Social Security (tax) g. Rents (gross) . Equals: Total deposits in excess of reported income Plus: a. Corporate checks written for personal benefit of taxpayers Equals: Unreported income for 1988 Deposit $5,000 16,316 239,218 182,947 89,748 278,347 811,576 (221,947) (5,094) (73.000) 511,535 (3,196) (3,286) (1,357) (1,088) (4,060) (5,094) (136,000) 357,454 5,007 362,461 - 37 - APPENDIX E 1989 . Bank deposits to personal accounts: Bank Account Number Deposit Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Total bank deposits - 1989 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 Cash expenditures: a. Note receivable (Ras) b. Purchase 212 W. Broad Street (3/31/89) income checks paid by Radtam, Rental taxpayer and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Inc. to income checks paid to taxpayer by Rental managing agent(s) of taxpayer's Marco Island, FL rental properties and not deposited into • taxpayers' bank accounts used in above analysis. Agent: Horizon by Sea Total gross income - 1989 Less nontaxable deposits/items: a. Paybacks to corp. b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Transfer between accounts from personal account Receipts per return: a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Pension/annuities e. Social Security (tax) f. Rents (gross) Equals: Total nontaxable deposits/items Total gross income unreported Taxable income per return Total Personal Total unreported income - 1989 income unreported items paid by corporation $27,523 250,835 142,400 72,000 27,867 76,051 512 597,188 64,000 74,285 41,000 -, 3,250 779,723 (55,925) (4,710) (173,000) (4,631) (3,008) (1,123) (4,263) (4,710) (232,000) (483,370) 296,353 (71,907) 224,446 2,247 226,693 - 38 - APPENDIX F 1990 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 1679177650 Bank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings Security Savings & Loan & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Barnett Bank Total bank deposits - 1990 Cash expenditures: a.. Purchase 10/18/90 - 407 Canal Street b. Purchase 7/2/90 - 610 Reed Street c. Purchase 6/18/90 - Lot 26 B 388 Unit 12 d. 1990 Plymouth Voyager 10/9 e. Boston Whaler boat 7/26 . income checks paid by Radtam, Rental taxpayer and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Inc., to income checks paid to taxpayer by managing Rental agent of taxpayer's Marco Island, FL rental properties and not deposited into taxpayer's bank accounts used in above analysi. Agents: Harborview Realty, Inc. Horizon by Sea Realty income checks paid to taxpayer by managing Rental agent of taxpayer's New Jersey rental properties and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in analysis. Agents: Van Dyk Group, Newbern Realty Inc. income checks paid to taxpayer directly Rental by tenants for rental of Marco Island or New Jersey properties and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Total gross income 1990 Less nontaxable deposits/items: a. Transfer between accounts b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Check to cash 611 account 00506140 Receipts Per Return: . a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Social Security (tax) e. Rents (Gross) f. Pension/annuities Equals: Total nontaxable deposit/items Total gross income unreported Taxable income per return Total income unreported - 1990 Deposit $125,640 395,039 219,001 . 15,575 176,807 57,137 18,922 277,265 1,285,386 5,258 11,592 25,000 6,500 15,850 44,000 1,000 8,809 3,080 9,774 16,761 1,433,010 (487,811) (5,544) (30,000) (2,840) (9,426) (1,170) (5,544) (311,700) (4,263) (858,298) 574,712 (73,861) 500,851 • • - 39 - APPENDIX G 1991 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Account Number . Bank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Barnett Bank Barnett Bank C.D. Barnett Bank C.D. Barnett Bank C.D. Total bank deposit - 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 1679177650 0031756406 0031760714 0031760659 1991 Cash expenditures: a. Purchase 3 Savings Bonds at face value of $10,000 income checks paid by Radtam, Rental taxpayer and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Inc., to income checks paid to taxpayer by managing Rental agent(s) of taxpayer's Marco Island, FL rental properties and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Agent ( s) : Horizon By Sea Inc. income checks paid to taxpayer by managing .Rental agent of taxpayer' s New Jersey rental properties and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Agent (s) : Bayshore Realty Newbern Realty income checks paid to taxpayer directly Rental by tenants for rental of Marco Island or New Jersey properties and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Total gross income Less nontaxable deposits/items: a. Paybacks to corp. b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Transfer between accounts from personal account Receipts per return: a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Pension/annuities e. Social Security (tatx) f . Rents (gross) g. Barnett CD (3) Equals: Total nontaxable deposit/items Total gross income unreported Taxable income per return Total income unreported - 1991 • Deposit $59,702 340,750 343, 915 . 6,400 63,395 13,802 7, 119 24,719 97,000 96,000 97 000 1,149,802 15,000 56, 000 9,951 3 , 816 13 , 710 31, 790 1,280,069 (87,500) (5,850) (177,500) (3,003) 21,522) (1,202) (4,263) (5,850) (368,930) (290 r 000) (965,620) 314,449 (78,032) 236,417 . 40 - no o o o ...a a o o o ooom o o o m o o o n i 1 : i i l i i N o ...i e i o o m n m n i i o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e i i I i i i i e i n i g i i * i o o o i N o N " ' ' ' ' ' o o o o a o o i i i i o o o o o o a H o o © ° © ' ' ' o N H e . O O e U E O E U O 4 . O U n 0 . e W ,.. 3 0 . O o H e o e-a k o 4 E O U e m 0 0 W 4 'O .. W W D e H m c 4 e ....i e-4 a m e e « U © .c k -H e 0 0 e a M M e W s e E o ac e a 5 U E-i E O N c -d o O O c e ,.I .mA cup e E-et H O U O v = e e cf) t -ra s EH m o y 5 k c 0) U cm e ,c U i m c p •• m O h U U U c 4 0 4 O O m -"I O c e -,a E m g 44 v4 © U e U * p to µ O o:E: m a ho 9 O -H At c 0 D 'O © -H e a m - W D o M m U i e e ©4 m4 m U M M ® c-0 & E O e © y N P O U U e v 0 0 0 -ri -d a g m 4 A 4 M W 0 -H o e N --e a O N m U O y O e U 0) e W c c 4 O U c U M g g m m m m e -ri -H c g g g g g e M c d c c 4 0 O . . e m .O ø m e r- O e O 3 e -d m • M M M M 4 e e M # 0 0 0 0 t COAccuchM48888>ca e m o y ,0w a e e-H -H -a-ei e m© a-H t a . p e -ri e m O e o ø v 3 e k o W œ·H e 4.c .c .c .c O O M c o 4 W m -ri O o k a k k k e W W • N c 3 4 e O M E m e O m c d E E E E -H c © c © CM c W k w a u -H 3 e A e U h m m U U U U p m e a v O O O O O O O c • 2 W O -H -H e c 0 -el e c O a m -ri E E c c c E c -ri -d k M e o k k k e W 4 y e e e c p c 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 E-i 5 a a e .c o o c -d 4 .c 4 5 W 4 5 C M k© a a e U-H© U U m m m U m O m W.-4 c e a e c - e O 4 W U N 5 a U CO N ca m m m g ^ m • 0 D - 41 - o O o oc oo oo W o o o | | | . | | o o o m N E 0 c O m 00 ke 04 e m O Oc OR © c O c O m ·c O c b e U M N UH ON O e µm e d m c po O sc p m y G km mUm pg O ·c o p œ H e N e C •u u o g v4 © c U O c m O G Am O ee c O O um 03 e Oe mae 4 • y O O CO y O e mps 0-0 d4 m k c O c Ao ce >O k est 49 d G'c m G m 09 U-H E O O e c 4 0 O m .. c . . O e Øc 0 U Ce O N e U O °° c O -d O O U U O O p e 0 Om O © U Oc O O m pac • m e -r,c p O 00 O e mMu m AAkv0m c be Ok Nm O M O -d ©·A 4 -W >peu o -e0D e e e mc H 4 Oc .s3° i e he k CO s oa y a m ae> He k e5 c O O ku E p-d © H O mo .aw y 9440 e W4H 8e Op m o -a u ø mHu my .H gg g gac o cv4-d OU Ma ð·Mai peH e4-H 4 4 O Q H W H © M .ag g p30 MW W cdo c 3 e m00 0 E O µm H Ø E OOcom e hup o U u 03000-H-M 4 CO •cc H OO-H k mo mN 4 y a ¼ u c c m Om Epc e 00 Om Ø Ow-ppH **d 89 m 90m u U Oco a Ñ œ m Sw b. e y p. . m e 04NN8-d D W e e e a a gp ce W Mo Op g Atm mm a ene e W p m 4 he W -m m W eo av e ae44 m Ø WH 4 04 mEp90H kw kmm e COkm C e p W030m W Ox up cm MW k u m m O W e c Up-H-HpOce cpO 9 •Um a o O>O00N000 m mAU m Am MQ-H c O e g3>cEpp-H ca 4* Om W W *k 04 e U cc H.e O QU 4 g m W HH O O - 42 - o o o o 80 o e t t o e M o O)© v W - C 5 4 0 m -r4 r-t W -r4 N C U O E o-r4 c a e -r4 k e 4 4 E O e m O O .C 4 4 d 3 -r4 •et G EO M o - W 3 ,C o m 9 o N o O t - o O C co to C .C M w -r4 - U w a co W to m O e-4 w - in ,C 4 W N E-i d N • M m-H d W C w e W D o m O O a E o m e 5 ,C . o t M © r4 O -r4 r- ,C co o w # O O N 4 d w 4 e C U © -r4 m O • to O U O - M U U 2 9 0 c U G G G 4 ,C - d t U p x ø ø A O O e u e o a g e O CG U e o e-4 -H o 4 - 4 o O M C m -w c.H g m g g O N e go t 0 U r-4 y e o .c . . . . . . . . t- co e m co co rm m M M e4 r- m e4 r4 H r4 M N H . . O O O 2 2 2 . O 2 . U U U U U U U .C .C 4 .c 4 4 .c e o e v v G G - - - ^ ^^ ^ * - -- - -- - U000000 - - - - © G U U - m .H E G C œ·c4 r. U ,o g U .H k O O m m e a e to 4 U C ,C 7 · • • k k C d 0 "4-d 4 4 # M M M N 4 © © > > -r4 -H W W 2 5 to to -H '4 4 .c M M 3 3 O O 4.C N i O g W U p O Da d U m 04 e p C c 0 O e e d O ga Di p x C O d g gg ,,4 0 g . µ > U ,g . E 4 4 r4 r4 M M Co co co co co m m M o m m m m N co co co co co co m • m - NNNN H NNNN NN c- w C No M M M w N w w N w e 4-co m m m m ONr4 H NNN N N ¢0 o M NNNNN N NN o NNN mNm r4 r4 H Nw N N w a N N N e4 N W N w * * * w w w w w w w 5 N - N U M -r4 N rE N m .C U M w W W m m m m m m m r- r- r- m i m m m i o o o o M o o m m m o ^ e-m o • * * * b • w i • m r4 v4 v4 r4 ©o a v4 4 4 4 A a r4 co -u - g e m ,C . m 014 i e w co co co e m w H H eq g .e4 c W C0 r- W W W W o o o w w e o w o o m e e > -r4 C C O O . N N W k 6 t' 8 8 W W W G o o ed ed o © U U v4 M C C i i 5 # • ocooommNNNmamHm nu e CNNm m -r4 O -,C gg - u a O O©© m e022 W W O O 9 9 U U ck Nd d W O d d c d c d c d a s s s s s y p p e e o u k s s k k M Ø Ø Ø 3 Ø D D D O O O O O O O O O Is.r-e .r4 U00000000000000000 AMu09UU00 o U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U c e m -r4 r-i p U U .c -c .a| Ed Ed N N w N r4 m m m m ® w • O 222222 2H • 2 O e .,4 .,4 g O E k d g y a av v v v v v •a O e a Og y pppuppoAC ccAd c d c4 O • • • 000 O 2 2 2 2 H 4 0 0 U U U U U U . • m c4 i W k o M E O O O O O O H E © m W U i 4 e- w w .a| < .a| 4 o 3 p ,o u .a| . m m O O O < .a| -ri .a| .a| . . . . . . . . . e e * . • a m W4EM © U O C © 4 -H k O .c E 3 C - 43 - APPENDIX I 1988 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Bank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Total gross deposits Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-2 23-8351019-1 23-100672C- 0010186161 • Less: Per statutory notice a. Redeposited items, transfers, checks to cash b. Nontaxable items c. Repayment to corporation Additional repayments to corporation Proceeds of personal mortgage deposited in corporate account Repayment of loan to petitioners deposited in corporate account Reduction to income - Subchapter S income Equals: Net deposits Less: a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Schedule D per return e. Pension/annuities f. Social Security (tax) g. Rents (gross) Equals: Gross income per tax return Difference between gross salary and actual salary deposited Plus corporate expenditures on petitioners' behalf Total unreported income from bank deposits Deposit $5,000 16,316 270,674 182,947 89,748 278,347 843,032 (221,947) (5,094) (73,000) (22,200) (179,722) (46,339) (38,341) 256,389 (3,196) (3,286) (1,357) (1,088) (4,060) (5,094) (136,000) (154,081) 440 5,007 107,755 - 44 - APPENDIX J 1989 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Hank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Total bank deposits Cash expenditures: Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 a. Notes receivable (Ras) b. Purchase 212 W. Broad Street c. Radtam check - Points paid to refinance (3/31/89) . personal mortgage d. Corporate funds' used to purchase 212 West Broad Street e. Corporate funds used to pay mortgage on . 211 East 17th Rental income checks paid by Radtam, Inc., to taxpayer and not deposited into taxpayer' s bank accounts used in above analysis. Rental income checks paid to taxpayer by managing agent(s) of taxpayer's Marco Island, Fl., rental properties and not deposited into taxpayers' bank accounts used in above analysis. Agent: Horizon by Sea Total gross income Less nontaxable deposits/items per statutory notice: . a. Paybacks to corp. from personal account b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Transfer between accounts Additional repayments and transfers: a. Refund of advance to Radtam b. Personal rental income deposited to corporate accounts c. Additional paybacks to corporation Total reductions to bank deposits Receipts per return: a. Wages/salary per return b. Interest income per return c. Dividend income per return d. Pension/annuities e. Social Security (tax) f. Rents (gross) Equals: Gross receipts per return Difference between gross salary and actual salary deposited Plus personal items paid by corporation Total unreported income from bank deposits: Deposit --- $27,523 250,835 1142,400 --- 32,867 76,051 512 530,188 64,000 74,285 10,657 93,000 . 64,000 ³305,942 41,000 3.250 880,380 - (55,925) (4,710) (173,000) (5,425) (44,250) (27,000) (310,310) (4,631) (3,008) (1,123) (4,263) (4,710) (232,000) (249,735) 326 860 4321,521 - . . . ¹Because of a typographical error, respondent incorrectly reflected gross deposits of *$142,000". The correct figure is *$142,400". "Corporate funds were drawn from two accounts: $72,000 from the Security Savings account and $21,000 from Radtam's savings account at Chemical Bank (account No. 600-871255). 'Because of a computational error, respondent incorrectly reflected total cash expenditures of "$306,482". The correct figure is *$305,942". 'The net effect of respondent's typographical and computational errors is a $140 reduction in petitioners' unreported income. - 45 - APPENDIX K 1990 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Bank Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings Security Savings & Loan & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Barnett Bank Total bank deposits - 1990 Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 1679177650 Cash expenditures: a. Purchase 10/18/90 407 Canal Street b. Purchase 7/2/90 610 Reed Street c. 1990 Plymouth Voyager 10/9 d. Boston Whaler boat 7/26 Gross income deposited to corporate account: Personal rental of Deficiency income treated as income in Statutory Notice Difference between gross salary and actual salary deposited Personal items paid by corporation increase in bank deposits: Total Less nontaxable deposits/items: a. Transfer between accounts b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Check to cash 611 account 00506140 Additional repayments and transfers: a. Corrections to statutory notice of deficiency for check to cash deficiency b. Correction of transfer listed in statutory notice of c. Personal rental income deposited to corporate accounts d. Additional transfers not listed in statutory notice of Deposit $125,640 395,039 219,001 15,575 176,807 57,137 18,922 277,265 1,285,386 5,258 47,592 6,500 115,850 83,424 292 2,535 161,451 (487,811) (5,544) (30,000) 30,000 4,500 (83,424) deficiency (160,000) . . Receipts Per Return: a. Wages/salary per return Interest income per return b. c. Dividend income per return d. Social Security (tax) e. Rents (gross) f. Pension/annuities Total reductions: Total gross income unreported: . (2,840) (9,426) (1,170) (5,544) (311,700) (4,263) (1,067,222) 379,615 . 2Because of a typographical error in respondent's bank deposit analysis, •$15,580" should be *$15,850". As a result, petitioners' total unreported gross income is increased by $270. - 46 - APPENDIX L 1991 Bank deposits to personal accounts: Bank · Energy People Federal Credit Union Barnett Bank Chemical Bank Security Savings & Loan Security Savings & Loan First Fidelity Chemical Bank Collective Federal Barnett Bank Barnett Bank C.D. Barnett Bank C.D. Barnett Bank C.D. . Total bank deposit - 1991 Account Number 11195-004 1672684397 00506140-3 23-8351019-1 23-1006720 0010186161 623-503-349 36-6-750909 1679177650 0031756406 0031760714 0031760659 Cash expenditures: a. Purchase 3 savings bonds at face value of $10,000 b. Less: Correction - $15,000 paid by check c. Use of Radtam funds to purchase assets for Bratam Deposit --- $59,702 340,750 343,915 6,400 63,395 13,802 7,119 24,719 . 97,000 96,000 97 000 1,149,802 . 15,000 (15,000) 50,000 Gross income deposited to corporate account: Personal rental of deficiency income treated as income in statutory notice Difference between gross salary and actual salary deposited Total increase in bank deposits: Less nontaxable deposits/items: a. Paybacks to corp. b. Social Security benefits (nontaxable) c. Transfer between accounts from personal account Additional repayments, transfers and nontaxable items: a. Transfers from personal·accounts used to purchase Barnett b. c. Bank certificates of deposit income deposited to corporate accounts Personal rental Additional transfers not listed in statutory notice of deficiency Additional payback to corporation Nontaxable refund from sewer authority in statutory notice of deficiency from corporate account treated as a transfer . d. e. f. Withdrawal Receipts per return: Interest income per return . a. Wages/salary per return b. c. Dividend income per return d. Pension/annuities e. Social Security (tax) f. Rents (gross) . Total reductions: . Total gross income unreported: . 2115,267 301 165,568 (87,500) (5,850) (177,500) (214,500) (115,267) (73,255) (2,400) (14,000) 25,000 (3,003) (21,522) (1,202) (4,263) (5,850) (368,930) (1,070,042) 245,328 2Because of a typographical error in respondent's bank deposit analysis, *$115,627" should be *$115,267". As a result, petitioners' income is decreased by $360. total unreported gross . . . .