Lodise v. Commissioner

1988 T.C. Memo. 463, 56 T.C.M. 311, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 498
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedSeptember 26, 1988
DocketDocket No. 7790-87.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1988 T.C. Memo. 463 (Lodise v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lodise v. Commissioner, 1988 T.C. Memo. 463, 56 T.C.M. 311, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 498 (tax 1988).

Opinion

MICHAEL FRANCIS LODISE, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Lodise v. Commissioner
Docket No. 7790-87.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1988-463; 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 498; 56 T.C.M. (CCH) 311; T.C.M. (RIA) 88463;
September 26, 1988; As amended September 29, 1988
Michael F. Lodise, Jr., pro se.
Daniel Morman, for the respondent.

WILLIAMS

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WILLIAMS, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies in petitioner's 1980 and 1981 Federal income tax of $ 25,211 and $ 47,309 respectively, and additions to tax pursuant to section 6653(b)(1) 1 of $ 12,991 for 1980 and $ 23,654.50 for 1981. 2 We must decide whether petitioner understated*499 his taxable income for 1980 and 1981 and whether the underpayments for those years were attributable to fraud.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner was a resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the time the petition in this case was filed. In 1980 and 1982 petitioner was the Chief Auditor of the Philadelphia Traffic Court. As Chief Auditor, petitioner was responsible for the deposit of checks and cash at the bank on behalf of the Philadelphia Traffic Court ("PTC"). Petitioner had control over miscellaneous unaccounted for checks and money orders.

During the years in issue petitioner was a compulsive gambler and embezzled funds from the PTC to support his uncontrolled habit. A cashier for PTC would collect cash receipts and accounted for checks outside petitioner's control, list the amount of cash and checks on a deposit slip, and would deliver*500 the cash, checks and deposit slip to petitioner who was responsible for depositing them in PTC's bank account. Regularly each week during the years in issue, petitioner would pocket the cash given him by the cashier, replace it with the miscellaneous, unaccounted for checks over which he had control, prepare a new deposit slip, and discard the deposit slip prepared by the cashier. The deposit slip prepared by petitioner and checks would then be delivered to a PTC employee who would make the deposit at the bank. Petitioner realized $ 61,824 in 1980 and $ 108,271 in 1981 from his embezzlement scheme. Although petitioner testified that all of this money was lost gambling, he did not substantiate these losses. He reported $ 5,461.80 worth of gambling gains and losses on his 1981 return.

Since 1979, in addition to other jobs he has held, petitioner has been self-employed as a Federal income tax return preparer. Petitioner completed several accounting courses during his three years of college education. Petitioner knew the amount of cash he embezzled in each instance, and he knew that the embezzled funds should have been reported as gross income on his Federal income tax returns*501 for the years in issue. Indeed, in Michael F. Lodise, Jr. v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1977-157, we held petitioner liable for Federal income tax on funds he had embezzled in 1973 and for an addition to tax for fraud because he intentionally did not report the embezzled funds on his 1973 return.

OPINION

Petitioner stipulated that he realized income from his embezzlement activities of $ 61,824 and $ 108,271 for 1980 an 1981, respectively. Petitioner argues that during the years in issue he was in the "trade or business" of gambling and that pursuant to Commissioner v. Groetzinger,480 U.S. 23 (1987), his gambling losses should be allowed to offset any other income he might have had during 1980 and 1981 including his income from embezzlement. 3 Petitioner's argument is based on the assumption that he has proven his gambling losses, which he has not. Other than his general statements that he gambled daily, petitioner presented no detailed evidence that his gambling activity produced losses. Therefore, petitioner may not offset any of his 1980 and 1981 income with his alleged gambling losses.

*502 We now must decide whether petitioner's underpayment of tax was attributable to fraud. Respondent bears the burden of proving fraud. Section 7454(a); Rule 142(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Fraud is a factual question to be resolved by an examination of the entire record. Rowlee v. Commissioner,80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983). To establish fraud, respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner acted with specific intent to evade taxes that he knew or believed he owed. Stephenson v. Commissioner,79 T.C. 995, 1005 (1982), affd. 748 F.2d 331 (6th Cir. 1984); Rule 142(b).

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

Related

Commissioner v. Groetzinger
480 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1987)
George Winkler v. United States
230 F.2d 766 (First Circuit, 1956)
Kenneth Poy Lee and Chow Joy Lee v. United States
466 F.2d 11 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
Joseph Solomon v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
732 F.2d 1459 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Beaver v. Commissioner
55 T.C. 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Stephenson v. Commissioner
79 T.C. No. 63 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Rowlee v. Commissioner
80 T.C. No. 61 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Brooks v. Commissioner
82 T.C. No. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 1984)
Estate of Upshaw v. Commissioner
416 F.2d 737 (Seventh Circuit, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1988 T.C. Memo. 463, 56 T.C.M. 311, 1988 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lodise-v-commissioner-tax-1988.