Having reviewed the record, we conclude that respondent violated the aforementioned Disciplinary Rules. However, to adopt the board’s recommended sanction, we *324would necessarily be required to deviate substantially from the precedent established by this court.

Respondent’s accomplishments as a practitioner, public servant, and community volunteer have made him a respected member of the bar in this state. However, this court cannot overlook the precedent establishing the sanction for a lawyer’s failure to comply with the federal income tax laws. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Stichter (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 248, 17 OBR 484, 478 N.E. 2d 1322 (one-year suspension); Bar Assn. of Greater Cleveland v. Litt (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 98, 5 OBR 178, 449 N.E. 2d 429 (one-year suspension); Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Loha (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 190, 4 OBR 467, 447 N.E. 2d 1306 (one-year suspension); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mittendorf (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 123, 4 OBR 369, 447 N.E. 2d 103 (one-year suspension); and Columbus Bar Assn. v. Wolfe (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 55, 24 O.O. 3d 113, 434 N.E. 2d 1096 (one-year suspension). Our decision today is controlled by that authority.

Accordingly, we order that respondent be suspended from the practice of' law in Ohio for a period of one year. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.