Sidney W. Fairchild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Third Circuit

Sidney W. Fairchild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

462 F.2d 462, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1171, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9425

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 1972

Docket71-1481

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 462 F.2d 462 (Sidney W. Fairchild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sidney W. Fairchild v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 462 F.2d 462, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1171, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9425 (3d Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court sustaining an assessment of an income tax deficiency.

The taxability of amounts that the Commissioner added to taxpayer’s reported income depended upon the legal conception that money, advanced to a taxpayer by another and used as the taxpayer’s own, is income to the taxpayer rather than a tax free loan, if at the time of receipt he had no intention to make repayment. As a matter of law, this view is correct.

There is a second question whether the taxpayer intended to repay the money. On the present record this was a close question of fact. However, we think the record warranted the Tax Court’s negative answer.

Finally, the taxpayer points out that the Tax Court made no explicit finding of fraud and urges that such a finding is prerequisite to the establishment of the government’s contention in this case. But a finding of fraud as such, with its attendant civil and criminal penalties, requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. In contrast, the critical finding of intention not to repay for purposes of determining an ordinary deficiency requires only a preponderance of evidence, though fraudulent intent may have been involved. The present finding was permissible, though the Commissioner may properly have concluded that the proof was not so clear and convincing as to justify fraud penalties.

The judgment will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court sustaining an assessment of an income tax deficiency.

The taxability of amounts that the Commissioner added to taxpayer’s reported income depended upon the legal conception that money, advanced to a taxpayer by another and used as the taxpayer’s own, is income to the taxpayer rather than a tax free loan, if at the time of receipt he had no intention to make repayment. As a matter of law, this view is correct.

There is a second question whether the taxpayer intended to repay the money. On the present record this was a close question of fact. However, we think the record warranted the Tax Court’s negative answer.

Finally, the taxpayer points out that the Tax Court made no explicit finding of fraud and urges that such a finding is prerequisite to the establishment of the government’s contention in this case. But a finding of fraud as such, with its attendant civil and criminal penalties, requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. In contrast, the critical finding of intention not to repay for purposes of determining an ordinary deficiency requires only a preponderance of evidence, though fraudulent intent may have been involved. The present finding was permissible, though the Commissioner may properly have concluded that the proof was not so clear and convincing as to justify fraud penalties.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 F.2d 462, 29 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 1171, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-w-fairchild-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-ca3-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack