LEO GRUDIN AND HARRIETTE GRUDIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Tax Court's finding of fraud was supported by circumstantial evidence and affirmed the decision.
A dentist was convicted of tax evasion and the Commissioner determined civil fraud for several years. The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner's fraud…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The taxpayer is a dentist. In 1969 he was convicted after having pleaded guilty to wilfully and knowingly attempting to evade federal income taxes for the year 1964. Additionally, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the taxpayer’s income tax returns for 1962, 1963, 1964, and 1965 were fraudulent under the civil fraud provisions of 26 U.S.C. § 6653. The taxpayer perfected an appeal to the Tax Court of the United States, which court sustained the Commissioner’s determination of fraud in all respects. Leo and Harriette Grudin, 43 P-H Tax.Ct.Mem.Dec. 1039 (1974).
Here, the taxpayer challenges only the finding of fraud for the year 1962.
The taxpayer’s principal contention is that there was no direct evidence of fraud on his part. It is well settled, however, that fraud may be established by circumstantial evidence. Klassie v. United States, 289 F. 2d 96, 103 (8th Cir. 1961); Powell v. Granquist, 252 F. 2d 56, 61 (9th Cir. 1958). See Ruark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 449 F. 2d 311, 313 (9th Cir. 1971). Compare Factor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 281 F. 2d 100, 111 (9th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 933, 81 S.Ct. 380, 5 L.Ed.2d 365 (1961); Bahoric v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 363 F. 2d 151, 154 (9th Cir. 1966).
Applying the principles of the foregoing authorities, we are convinced that we have no alternative save to affirm the decision of the Tax Court. The taxpayer offered an explanation for the substantial understatement of his income, but the duty was that of the Tax Court, and not of our court, to resolve the question of the credibility of the taxpayer in that respect.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bradford v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 796 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1986)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Gavagan, 364 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1961)
- Piasecki Aircraft Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 364 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1961)
- Powell v. Granquist, 252 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1958)
- Factor v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 281 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960)
- Ruark v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 449 F.2d 311 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Klassie v. United States, 289 F.2d 96 (8th Cir. 1961)
- Kazimir C. and Anna M. Bahoric v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 363 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1966)