Fulp v. Commissioner
Opinion
*128 P was a social worker in 1972 and 1973 and received "kickbacks" in connection with the issuance of unauthorized welfare checks. Such kickbacks were not reported by him on his Federal income tax returns for those years.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
SIMPSON,
| Addition | ||
| Sec. 6653 (b) | ||
| Year | Deficiency | I.R.C. 1954 1 |
| 1972 | $ 438.00 | $ 219.00 |
| 1973 | 3,499.00 | 1,750.00 |
The only issue for decision is whether the petitioner's failure to report certain "kickbacks" received by him constituted fraud under section 6653(b).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The petitioner, Robert Fulp, was a legal resident of New York, N.Y., at the time*129 of filing his petition herein. He filed Federal income tax returns for 1972 and 1973 with the Internal Revenue Service, Brooklyn, N.Y.
In 1972 and 1973, Mr. Fulp was employed as a case worker by the Social Services Department of the City of New York. During the course of such employment, he arranged for the issuance of unauthorized emergency assistance checks to various welfare clients from September 1972 through October 1973. In consideration for the issuance of such checks, Mr. Fulp received "kickbacks."
In November 1973, Mr. Fulp was indicted for grand larceny based on personal diversion of public welfare funds. In May 1974, he pled guilty to such charge and was convicted by the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County. In July 1974, he was sentenced to probation of 5 years with the condition that he make restitution of $ 14,300 through probation.
On his Federal income tax returns, Mr. Fulp reported, as his only income, his salary of $ 6,875.90 for 1972 and $ 9,523.46 for 1973. In his notice of deficiency, the Commissioner determined that the kickbacks were reportable income and determined an addition to tax under section 6653(b), relating to fraud, based on the failure*130 to report such income.
OPINION
Although Mr. Fulp filed a petition in this case, he failed to prosecute the matter timely, and accordingly, the Court has already decided that he is liable for the deficiencies determined by the Commissioner. Thus, the only issue for us to decide at this time is whether he is liable for the additions to tax due to fraud.
The Commissioner has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that some part of the underpayment for each year was due to fraud.
The petitioner did not appear, either in person or by representative, at the trial of this case. The Commissioner presented some evidence*132 in an attempt to carry his burden of proving fraud. The only indicia of fraud alleged by him are the petitioner's failure to report substantial income over a period of 2 years and the petitioner's failure to report the kickbacks although he filed returns and reported his salary for the years 1972 and 1973.
Based on the evidence presented by the Commissioner, we have found that the petitioner did receive kickbacks in 1972 and 1973 and that he did not report any of them as income on the returns filed by him. However, the Commissioner presented no evidence establishing the amount of the kickbacks received by the petitioner in either year. To establish the amount of the kickbacks, the Commissioner apparently relies on the statements contained in his notice of deficiency and the allegations set forth in his answer. Yet, it is well settled that the Commissioner cannot carry his burden of proving fraud by relying on the petitioner's failure to appear at the trial and offer evidence.
Without such evidence, the record is insufficient to show fraud. A consistent pattern of understatement of substantial amounts of income over a period of years is persuasive evidence of a fraudulent intent to evade tax.
Footnotes
1. All statutory references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 as in effect during the years in issue.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.