Friedberg v. Commissioner

1960 T.C. Memo. 251, 19 T.C.M. 1391, 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40
United States Tax Court·Decided November 25, 1960·No. Docket No. 42513.·Unpublished

Opinion

David F. Friedberg v. Commissioner.
Friedberg v. Commissioner
Docket No. 42513.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1960-251; 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40; 19 T.C.M. (CCH) 1391; T.C.M. (RIA) 60251;
November 25, 1960

*40 Held, the deficiencies determined for the taxable years 1943 to 1947, inclusive, were due to fraud with intent to evade tax.

John J. Larkin, Esq., for the respondent.

VAN FOSSAN

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

The respondent determined deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax for fraud as follows:

Additions to Tax
Sec. 293(b),
YearDeficiencyI.R.C. 1939
1942$ 403.99$ 188.25
19432,391.021,190.67
19445,503.342,751.67
19459,011.064,662.33
19468,912.304,511.15
194719,759.289,879.64

This case was regularly calendared for hearing in Columbus, Ohio, on March 28, 1960, and was called for trial on March 30, 1960. Petitioner did not appear at the hearing, nor was he represented by counsel. Respondent moved that all of the deficiencies, excluding the additions to tax for fraud, be affirmed for failure properly to prosecute, which motion was granted by the Court.

Respondent, who had the burden of proving fraud, proceeded with the presentation of evidence in support of his finding of fraud. Respondent duly filed a brief. In view of the nature of the issue, some weeks after the trial we granted*41 special leave to petitioner to file a paper entitled "Reply From Petitioner to Brief For Respondent."

The sole issue remaining is whether respondent has sustained the burden of proving that the deficiencies or a part thereof were due to fraud with intent to evade tax.

Findings of Fact

Petitioner is an individual residing in Columbus, Ohio. He filed Federal income tax returns for the years 1942 through 1947 with the collector of internal revenue at Columbus.

Frances Friedberg is petitioner's wife. Her maiden name was Handler. Elaine Friedberg and Wayne Friedberg are petitioner's daughter and son. These individuals were claimed as dependents during the years involved. The children had no income of their own during this period. Previous to the taxable years petitioner was practically insolvent.

From 1941 through at least 1947, petitioner operated a wholesale tailoring business under the name of Buckeye Tailoring Company, and a retail tailoring business under the name of American Male Tailors.

Such books as petitioner possessed reflected as income far less than that undoubtedly received. When interrogated concerning the discrepancies, petitioner was evasive and unable to offer*42 any explanation. The respondent was unable to reconcile the differences and accordingly determined petitioner's income by the net worth method. The items enumerated in such net worth computations were based upon adequate evidence discovered by respondent during the course of his investigation.

Petitioner's adjusted gross income or net income as shown in his income tax returns for the taxable years 1942 to 1947, inclusive, his victory tax net income as shown in his income tax return for the year 1943, his correct adjusted gross income and/or net income for the taxable years 1942 through 1947, and his correct victory tax net income for the taxable year 1943 were as follows:

Adjusted GrossCorrect AdjustedNet IncomeCorrect
Taxable YearIncome ReportedGross IncomeReportedNet Income
1942$2,400.00$ 4,215.86
19432,587.0010,809.31
1944$2,735.97$18,360.6817,860.68
19452,012.3624,949.4524,449.45
19464,943.9326,732.04

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Friedberg v. Commissioner, 1960 T.C. Memo. 251, 19 T.C.M. 1391, 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 40 (tax 1960).

1960 T.C. Memo. 251 (Friedberg v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Friedberg v. United States
348 U.S. 142 (Supreme Court, 1955)