                        T.C. Memo. 2011-65



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



          KNUTSEN-ROWELL, INC. ET AL.,1 Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 27626-07, 27628-07,   Filed March 16, 2011.
                 27629-07.


     Cruz Saavedra, for petitioners.

     Carolyn A. Schenck and Scott B. Burkholder, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GOEKE, Judge:   These three cases are consolidated for

purposes of trial, briefing, and opinion.    One case involves the

Federal income tax of John D. and Kathleen K. Rowell


     1
      Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated
herewith: John D. Rowell, Professional Law Corporation, docket
No. 27628-07; and John D. & Kathleen K. Rowell, docket No. 27629-
07.
                                 - 2 -

(respectively, Mr. Rowell and Mrs. Rowell; collectively, the

Rowells) for 2000 through 2002.      Another case involves the

Federal income tax of Mr. Rowell’s wholly owned C corporation,

John D. Rowell, Professional Law Corp. (PLC), for 1999 through

2002.    The third case involves the Federal income tax of Mrs.

Rowell’s wholly owned C corporation, Knutsen-Rowell, Inc.

(Knutsen), for 2001 and 2002.

     Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions

to tax, and penalties:2

                      Knutsen, docket No. 27626-07

                        Addition to Tax   Accuracy-Related Penalty
  Year     Deficiency   Sec. 6651(a)(1)         Sec. 66621

  2001      $67,973         $6,797                 $13,595
  2002       14,957           -0-                    2,991
     1
      Respondent asserts in the answer that Knutsen is liable
  for the fraud penalty under sec. 6663 for 2001 and 2002 and
  if not, for the accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662.

                        PLC, docket No. 27628-07

                          Addition to Tax       Fraud Penalty
    Year     Deficiency   Sec. 6651(a)(1)         Sec. 66631

    1999       $5,748         $1,437                 $4,311
    2000       83,784          8,382                 62,838
    2001       32,403          3,240                 24,302
    2002       76,414           -0-                  57,311



     2
      Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code, and Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Dollar amounts are rounded. The term “years in issue” refers
collectively to 1999 through 2002. The term “subject
corporations” refers collectively to PLC and Knutsen.
                                  - 3 -
     1
      Respondent determined alternatively that PLC is liable
  for the penalty for negligence under sec. 6662 to the extent
  it is not liable for the fraud penalty.

                  The Rowells, docket No. 27629-07

                               Addition to Tax    Fraud Penalty
         Year    Deficiency    Sec. 6651(a)(1)      Sec. 66631

         2000    $85,780           $4,289            $64,335
         2001    110,585           16,588             82,939
         2002     15,079             -0-              11,309
     1
      Respondent determined that the fraud penalty applied only
  to Mr. Rowell. Respondent determined alternatively that the
  Rowells are liable for the addition to tax for negligence
  under sec. 6662 to the extent Mr. Rowell is not liable for
  the fraud penalty. Respondent in the answer asserts that the
  fraud penalty for each year also applies to Mrs. Rowell.

Respondent asserts in an amendment to answer in docket No.

27629-07 that the Rowells are liable for increased deficiencies,

additions to tax, and penalties in the following amounts:3

                                Addition to Tax    Fraud Penalty
          Year    Deficiency    Sec. 6651(a)(1)      Sec. 66631

          2000   $406,529          $20,343            $304,897
          2001    340,485           51,344             255,364
          2002    182,000             -0-              135,500
     1
      Respondent asserts alternatively in the amendment to
  answer that the Rowells are liable for the penalty


     3
      The Rowells filed amended California income tax returns for
2000, 2001, and 2002 (amended California returns) reporting
income in amounts greater than the amounts reported for Federal
income tax purposes. The increased deficiencies (and related
amounts) result mainly from respondent’s assertions that the
Rowells’ income for 2000, 2001, and 2002 includes the additional
amounts of income reported on the amended California returns.
The increased deficiency (and related amount) for 2002 also
results from respondent’s assertion that the Rowells failed to
include in their income (as a constructive dividend) a $100,000
transfer that PLC made on Mr. Rowell’s behalf.
                                 - 4 -

  for negligence under sec. 6662 to the extent they are not
  liable for the fraud penalty.

     Petitioners concede they are liable for the accuracy-related

penalties under section 6662 (because, they state, they were

negligent), to the extent they are not liable for the fraud

penalties under section 6663, and for the failure to file

additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1).     We are left to decide

the following issues:

     1.    Whether Knutsen overreported its income for 2001 and

2002.     We hold it did not;

     2.    whether PLC underreported its income for 1999, 2000,

2001, and 2002.     We hold it did to the extent stated herein;

     3.    whether the Rowells underreported their income for 2000,

2001, and 2002.     We hold they did to the extent stated herein;

     4.    whether Knutsen is entitled to deductions of certain

expenses and to costs of goods sold reported on its 2001 and 2002

Federal income tax returns.     We hold it is to the extent stated

herein; and

     5.    whether any of petitioners is liable for a fraud penalty

under section 6663.     We hold that none of petitioners is liable

for a fraud penalty.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

I.   Preface

     The parties submitted to the Court stipulated facts and

related exhibits.     We find those stipulated facts accordingly and
                                  - 5 -

incorporate those facts and exhibits herein.      The Rowells,

husband and wife, filed joint Federal income tax returns for 2000

through 2002.    They resided in California when their petition was

filed.   Knutsen’s mailing address and PLC’s principal place of

business were in California when their petitions were filed.

II.   The Rowells

      Mr. Rowell is a trial attorney who has practiced law in

California for over 30 years.      His practice areas are personal

injury and products liability.      He has received various awards

and certificates of appreciation from several professional

organizations.      He practiced law during the years in issue

through PLC, his wholly owned corporation.

      Mrs. Rowell is a television and screen writer.     During the

years in issue she worked as a screenwriter and as a buyer and

seller of vintage dolls and similar collectible items

(collectively, vintage dolls).      She worked through Knutsen, her

wholly owned corporation.

      Each of the Rowells is well educated and devotes long hours

to his or her profession.      Neither of the Rowells is proficient

on the subject of tax law or on the requirements thereof.
                                    - 6 -

III.    Mr. Rowell’s Law Practice

       A.   PLC

       Mr. Rowell graduated from law school in 1977, and he began

practicing law at a law firm specializing in products liability.

He formed PLC on September 20, 1982.

       In 1999 PLC joined the law firm of Cheong, Denove, Rowell,

Antablin & Bennett (Cheong firm).       The Cheong firm’s practice

included products liability.      During the years in issue, PLC was

a partner in the Cheong firm, and Mr. Rowell was PLC’s sole

shareholder.      While Mr. Rowell (through PLC) worked for the

Cheong firm, he also (through PLC) worked on some cases for PLC

alone.

       For 1999 the Cheong firm issued PLC a Schedule K-1,

Partner’s Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., reporting

that PLC realized $92,120 of taxable income for 1999 with respect

to its partnership interest in the Cheong firm.       PLC reported on

its 1999 Federal income tax return that it realized $7,574 of

taxable income as to that interest.

       B.   Advanced Client Costs

       When Mr. Rowell (through the firm for which he worked)

retained a client, the retainer agreement stated that the firm

would pay certain litigation costs (e.g., costs of depositions,

transcripts, and filing fees) for the client and that the firm

would recover its payment of those costs (advanced client costs)
                                - 7 -

from any proceeds received at the end of the client’s case.     Mr.

Rowell (through his firm) represented plaintiffs in lawsuits that

involved significant amounts of advanced client costs.     PLC did

not always recover the full amount of advanced client costs paid

on behalf of a client.    PLC recorded its payment of a client’s

advanced client costs as a loan to that client.

IV.   Knutsen

      A.   Background

      Mrs. Rowell organized Knutsen on September 2, 1982.    Mrs.

Rowell was Knutsen’s only employee.     Initially, Knutsen’s sole

business was the leasing of Mrs. Rowell’s writing services.

      B.   Knutsen’s Doll Business

      In 2001 Mrs. Rowell’s earning capacity as a writer began to

decline, and Mrs. Rowell decided to expand Knutsen’s business to

include the purchase and sale of vintage dolls.     During 2001 and

2002 Knutsen bought and sold vintage dolls through an eBay store.

Knutsen initially bought and sold collectible Barbie dolls but

later expanded into other collectible items.     During 2001 and

2002 Knutsen generally maintained a daily inventory of 900 to

1,000 vintage dolls.    Knutsen attempted to sell each of its

vintage dolls above cost but was not always able to do so.

      C.   2001 and 2002 Expenses

      During 2001 and 2002 Knutsen paid its business expenses

(including inventory purchases) primarily by check or credit
                                   - 8 -

card.     During those respective years Knutsen paid $157,258 and

$29,661 for vintage dolls it purchased for resale.       Knutsen also

paid the following expenses:

                                      2001        2002

            Listing fees            $4,678      $3,172
            Outside services         5,984       2,885
            Rent                     2,234       4,533
            Research                13,812      13,390
            Shared residuals           293       1,443
            Dues                      -0-        3,608
            Postage                    102         123
            Supplies                   301         100
            Telephone                  375         203
            Bank service fees           57          20
            Utilities                   73         136
            Computer maintenance      -0-          276
            Accounting                 720        -0-
            Taxes                    1,600        -0-
              Total                 30,229      29,889

The listing fees expense related to Knutsen’s doll business, and

the research, dues, and shared residuals expenses related to

Knutsen’s screenwriting business.      All of the remaining expenses

related to both businesses.

     D.     2001 and 2002 Income

     During 2001 and 2002 Knutsen deposited into its operating

accounts the following amounts related to its doll and

screenwriting businesses:

    Year      Doll Business   Screenwriting Business        Total

    2001         $18,055             $174,622            $192,677
    2002          23,602               18,339              41,941
                                 - 9 -

V.    Petitioners’ Financial Records

       The Rowells maintained petitioners’ financial records using

Quicken, a computerized accounting system.    Each of the Rowells

(sometimes with the help of others) entered petitioners’

financial information into Quicken’s database.    This information

related to checks, expenses, transfers, deposits, and payees.

Petitioners’ expenses would be input into various categories of

the database that reflected the character of the expenditures.

Petitioners used a “split” function in Quicken to apportion the

amount of an expenditure into various categories of expenses and

to account for that expenditure by the various categories.

Petitioners generally did not maintain supporting documents for

entries input into the database.

VI.    Petitioners’ Financial Accounts

       A.   The Rowells

       The Rowells maintained various personal checking accounts.

The Rowells also maintained a personal equity line of credit

account and various personal brokerage accounts.

       B.   PLC

       PLC maintained various bank accounts for its operation

(collectively, PLC operating accounts).    PLC also maintained

various client trust accounts.    During the years in issue each of

the Rowells authorized disbursements out of the PLC operating

accounts.
                                     - 10 -

       C.     Knutsen

       Knutsen maintained various bank accounts for its operation

(collectively, Knutsen operating accounts).        Knutsen also

maintained a brokerage account.         During the years in issue each

of the Rowells authorized disbursements out of the Knutsen

operating accounts.

       D.     Credit Card Accounts

       The Rowells had many credit card accounts.      Neither PLC nor

Knutsen had any credit card account in its name.

VII.       The Rowells’ Intermingling Personal and Corporate Funds

       A.     The Rowells’ Personal Use of PLC Funds

       During 2000, 2001, and 2002 the Rowells took funds from

PLC’s operating accounts for their personal use.        The Rowells

took those funds through checks, withdrawals, and transfers, and

they used those funds to pay their living expenses (including the

expenses of their children) or otherwise spent them at their

discretion.       With one exception, none of the transactions

underlying the taking or the use of those funds related to PLC’s

business, and the Rowells did not report any of those funds as a

distribution (or other type of income).4        The amounts of those

funds were $427,870 in 2000, $272,862 in 2001, and $92,631 in

2002.



       4
      The single exception is that the Rowells reported $109,000
of those funds as wages that PLC paid Mr. Rowell in 2000.
                               - 11 -

     Mr. Rowell transferred $28,000 to PLC during 2000, and he

caused another $20,000 to be deposited during that year into the

PLC operating accounts.   Mr. Rowell transferred $48,500 to PLC

during 2001.

     B.   The Rowells’ Personal Use of Knutsen Funds

     During 2001 and 2002 the Rowells took funds from Knutsen’s

operating accounts for their personal use.    The Rowells took

those funds through checks, withdrawals, and transfers, and they

used those funds to pay their living expenses (including the

expenses of their children) or otherwise spent them at their

discretion.    None of the transactions underlying the taking or

the use of those funds related to Knutsen’s business, and the

Rowells did not report any of those funds as a distribution (or

other type of income).    The amounts of those funds were $222,871

in 2001 and $97,675 in 2002.

     The Rowells transferred $69,030 and $58,675 to Knutsen

during 2001 and 2002, respectively.

     C.   The Rowells’ Payment of Corporate Expenses With Credit
          Cards

     The Rowells routinely used their personal credit cards to

pay the business expenses of the subject corporations.
                                - 12 -

VIII.     Petitioners’ Tax Returns

        A.   Overview

        Edward Cutter (Mr. Cutter) prepared all of the Federal

income tax returns at issue.     Mr. Cutter is a certified public

accountant who was the Rowells’ longtime tax return preparer.       He

prepared the subject returns following his regular practice

whereby Mr. Rowell brought in petitioners’ data, Mr. Cutter input

the data into his tax preparation system, Mr. Cutter and Mr.

Rowell discussed the data superficially, and Mr. Cutter printed

the returns (and possibly in some cases reprinted a return after

correcting a mistake that Mr. Rowell identified on the return).

        With respect to each of the Rowells’ Federal income tax

returns at issue, Mr. Cutter spent a total of approximately 1

hour preparing that return and the related State income tax

return for the year.     With respect to each of the subject

corporations’ Federal income tax returns at issue, Mr. Cutter

spent a total of approximately 1 hour preparing that return.      Mr.

Cutter prepares a lot of tax returns each tax season, and he

tries not to get involved with a client’s financial situation or

to offer a client advice on the particulars of tax law.     Mr.

Cutter did not help (nor did he want to help) the Rowells

ascertain petitioners’ data for their tax returns, or explain to

them the requirements for any particular deduction.     When he

prepared each of the tax returns for the subject corporations,
                               - 13 -

Mr. Cutter checked the return to make sure it was consistent with

the prior year’s return, and he checked to make sure the balance

sheet balanced.

     PLC’s 1999 through 2002 returns reported that at the end of

those respective years PLC owed Mr. Rowell $428,234, $513,801,

$561,674, and $574,862 in loans.5   Knutsen’s 2001 and 2002

returns reported at the end of those respective years that

Knutsen owed Mrs. Rowell $44,000 and $31,162 in loans.   There

were no written agreements or promissory notes evidencing any of

the amounts reported as loans to or by PLC or Knutsen, and

neither Mr. Rowell nor Mrs. Rowell charged interest on any amount

that was lent to his or her separate corporation.   None of the

amounts reported as loans were collateralized, and none of those

amounts were repayable pursuant to a schedule or any other

specific term.    The Rowells and the subject corporations did not

record the amount of any loan between them or otherwise keep

track of it accurately.

     B.    PLC’s Returns

     PLC’s 1999 through 2002 Federal income tax returns reported

total income and claimed total deductions in the following

amounts:




     5
      PLC’s 1999 return reported $280,234 of loans from Mr.
Rowell at the beginning of the year.
                                    - 14 -

         Year       Total Income Reported    Total Deductions Claimed

           1999           $355,560                  $355,896
           2000            487,235                   481,954
           2001            107,941                   108,105
           2002            287,735                   287,735

Mr. Rowell did not anticipate before these returns were prepared

that PLC would owe any tax for 1999 through 2002.       Such was so

because PLC had limited cases and had just closed a case where it

was unable to recover approximately $200,000 in advanced client

costs.

      C.     Knutsen’s Returns

      Knutsen’s 2001 and 2002 Federal income tax returns reported

total income and claimed total deductions in the following

amounts:

         Year       Total Income Reported    Total Deductions Claimed

           2001           $53,679                    $53,800
           2002            69,084                     68,514
The Rowells did not anticipate before these returns were prepared

that Knutsen would owe any tax for 2001 or 2002.       Such was so

because Knutsen had purchased what the Rowells considered to be a

significant amount of inventory in 2001.

IX.   Audit of the Subject Tax Returns

      A.     Overview

      Respondent audited petitioners’ Federal income tax returns

that are the subject of the notices of deficiency (subject tax

returns).       Respondent also included the Rowells’ 1999 tax return
                                - 15 -

in the audit.    Respondent started auditing PLC on February 6,

2003, and expanded the audit on October 23, 2003, to include the

Rowells.    Respondent further expanded the audit on June 29, 2004,

to include Knutsen.

     Initially, Mr. Cutter was petitioners’ representative in the

audit, and Mr. Rowell gave Mr. Cutter documents to give to

respondent’s revenue agent (agent).      Mr. Rowell eventually met

repeatedly with the agent, and he personally produced many

documents to the agent and answered many questions.      The agent

also interviewed Mrs. Rowell.

     B.    PLC

     PLC’s records for 1999 through 2002 were incomplete and

conflicting and did not reconcile to its tax returns.      Respondent

ascertained PLC’s gross receipts for 1999 through 2002 using a

bank deposits analysis that included a review of deposits,

canceled checks, and transfers into and out of PLC’s operating

accounts.    PLC’s gross receipts for 1999 through 2002 as reported

by PLC and as ascertained by respondent through the bank deposits

analysis are as follows:6




     6
      In addition to unreported gross receipts determined through
the bank deposits analysis, respondent determined that PLC failed
to report income from the Cheong firm of $84,546 ($92,120 -
$7,574 = $84,546) and failed to report interest income of $197
and $1,196 for 2000 and 2002, respectively. Petitioners concede
these other adjustments.
                                    - 16 -

       Year        Per Examination       Per Return      Difference

       1999           $833,080           $649,033        $184,047
                       1
       2000              166,763          115,111          51,652
                         2
       2001                99,090          39,058          60,032
       2002               31,389           26,640           4,749
           1
          Includes $8,220 of legal fees realized by PLC but
      deposited into the Rowells’ personal bank accounts.
           2
          Includes $27,073 that respondent determined was
      taxable income that Mr. Rowell won in a chess tournament
      on behalf of PLC but which was deposited into the Rowells’
      personal bank accounts.

     Respondent allowed PLC certain deductions for each year.

Two deductions were for advanced client costs and bad debts with

respect to advanced client costs.        Respondent allowed PLC to

deduct advanced client costs to the extent that its clients’

cases were settled and the clients’ reimbursements of the

advanced client costs were included in PLC’s reconstructed gross

receipts.      Respondent allowed PLC to deduct a bad debt with

respect to advanced client costs to the extent that PLC could not

recover advanced client costs because its clients’ cases were

concluded without available funds to reimburse the advanced

client costs.      The amounts of these allowed deductions are as

follows:

     Year        Advanced Client Costs        Bad Debt          Total

     1999              $338,639               $75,286        $413,925
     2000                17,996                72,999          90,995
     2001                 5,063                49,199          54,262
     2002                    37                21,381          21,418
                                     - 17 -

     Respondent determined that PLC owed Mr. Rowell $45,192 in

loans at the end of 1999.        Respondent determined that PLC had no

loans payable to Mr. Rowell at the end of 2000, 2001, or 2002.

     C.     Knutsen

     Knutsen’s records for 2001 and 2002 were incomplete and

conflicting and did not reconcile to its tax returns.          Respondent

determined Knutsen’s gross receipts for 2001 and 2002 using a

bank deposits analysis that included a review of deposits,

canceled checks, and transfers in and out of Knutsen’s operating

accounts.        Knutsen’s gross receipts for 2001 and 2002 as reported

by Knutsen and as initially determined by respondent through the

bank deposits analysis are as follows:

            Year       Per Examination1       Per Return   Difference

            2001          $181,466            $219,859      $38,393
            2002            20,472              83,184       62,712
             1
              Respondent concluded that Knutsen’s receipts from
          doll sales were Mrs. Rowell’s personal proceeds and
          omitted those proceeds from these amounts.

Respondent later determined that some of Knutsen’s gross receipts

were not deposited into the Knutsen operating accounts and

superseded his initial computation of Knutsen’s gross receipts as

follows:7




     7
      This superseding computation also includes Knutsen’s
receipts from doll sales.
                                  - 18 -

          Year      Per Examination        Per Return    Difference

          2001        $219,859             $219,859          -0-
          2002          83,184               83,184          -0-

     Respondent disallowed all of Knutsen’s reported deductions

and costs of goods sold for 2001 and 2002 except for $2,681 and

$4,063 of deductions that Knutsen claimed for the respective

years as “other deductions”.       The amounts of these disallowed

items are as follows:

      Expense Item                         2001           2002

    Cost of goods sold                 $166,241         $14,100
    Repairs and maintenance              13,272            -0-
    Rents                                 5,400           4,533
    Taxes and licenses                    1,488              80
    Advertising                             375           1,833
    Other deductions                     30,584          58,005

     Respondent determined that Knutsen had no loans payable to

Mrs. Rowell at the end of 2001 or 2002.

     D.   The Rowells

           1.    Overview

     The Rowells’ records for 2000 through 2002 were incomplete

and conflicting and did not reconcile to their tax returns.

Respondent determined the Rowells’ income for 2000 through 2002

primarily on the basis of the bank deposits analyses of the

subject corporations.       Respondent also reviewed deposits,

canceled checks, and transfers into and out of the Rowells’

personal bank accounts.
                              - 19 -

          2.   Distributions From PLC

     As stated supra pp. 10-11, the Rowells took PLC funds for

their personal use, and the amounts of these funds were $427,870

in 2000, $272,862 in 2001, and $92,631 in 2002.   Of these

amounts, respondent determined that the Rowells had received

constructive distributions of $225,678 for 2000, $224,362 for

2001, and $92,487 for 2002.   Respondent determined the amounts of

these constructive distributions after taking into account the

$45,192 in loans that PLC owed Mr. Rowell as of January 1, 2000,

the $109,000 of wages that the Rowells reported Mr. Rowell

received from PLC in 2000, the $96,500 that Mr. Rowell

transferred to PLC, and a $144 credit.

     With respect to the constructive distributions that he

determined Mr. Rowell received from PLC during 2000 through 2002,

respondent determined, first, that PLC’s current and accumulated

earnings and profits (E & P) for 2000, 2001, and 2002 were such

that $225,678, $124,967, and $92,487 of the distributions in the

respective years were dividends.   Second, because the

distribution for 2001 exceeded PLC’s current and accumulated E &

P (as determined by respondent), respondent determined that

$1,000 of that distribution was a nontaxable return of capital

and the remainder, $98,395, a taxable capital gain.   In sum,

respondent characterized Mr. Rowells’ constructive distributions

from PLC as follows:
                                  - 20 -

                                           Return of
   Year      Distributions    Dividends     Capital    Capital Gain

   2000           $225,678   $225,678          -0-          -0-
   2001            224,362    124,967        $1,000      $98,395
   2002             92,487     92,487          -0-          -0-

             3.    Distributions From Knutsen

     As stated supra p. 11, the Rowells took Knutsen funds for

their personal use, and the amounts of these funds were $222,871

in 2001 and $97,675 in 2002.      Of those amounts, respondent

determined that the Rowells had received constructive

distributions of $163,425 for 2001 and $35,752 for 2002.8

Respondent determined the amounts of these constructive

distributions after taking into account the $127,705 that the

Rowells transferred to Knutsen and the $41,657 of doll sales

income (which respondent determined was realized by Mrs. Rowell)

deposited into the Knutsen operating accounts.9

     Respondent characterized the constructive distributions that

he determined Mrs. Rowell received from Knutsen during 2001 and

2002.     First, respondent determined that Knutsen’s current and



     8
      Respondent determined that during 2001 and 2002 the Rowells
respectively took $250,511 and $118,029 of Knutsen funds for
their personal use and that the respective constructive
distributions were $163,425 and $35,752. We find that $27,640
and $20,354 of the respective amounts for 2001 and 2002 were
spent in Knutsen’s doll business and do not include those amounts
in the amounts that the Rowells took for their personal use.
Consequently, the constructive distributions are reduced to
$135,785 for 2001 and $15,398 for 2002.
     9
        A $1 discrepancy is attributable to rounding.
                                 - 21 -

accumulated E & P for those years were such that $163,425 and

$31,258 of the distributions in the respective years were

characterized as dividends.     Second, in that the distribution for

2002 exceeded Knutsen’s current and accumulated E & P for that

year (as determined by respondent), respondent determined that

$1,000 of that distribution was a nontaxable return of capital

and the remainder, $3,494, a taxable capital gain.      In sum,

respondent characterized Mrs. Rowells’ constructive distributions

from Knutsen as follows:

                                          Return of
   Year    Distributions     Dividends     Capital    Capital Gain

   2001         $163,425    $163,425          -0-         -0-
   2002           35,752      31,258        $1,000      $3,494

           4.    Summary of Distributions

     Respondent determined that the characterization of

constructive distributions received by the Rowells was as

follows:

                                          Return of
   Year    Distributions     Dividends     Capital    Capital Gain

   2000         $225,678    $225,678          -0-          -0-
   2001          387,788     288,393        $1,000      $98,395
   2002          128,239     123,745         1,000        3,494

           5.    NOL Deduction for 2002

     The Rowells reported on their 2000 Federal income tax return

that they were entitled to deduct a net operating loss (NOL)

carryover of $31,996.      The 2000 return provides no explanation of
                              - 22 -

the computation or genesis of the claimed NOL carryover.

Respondent disallowed this deduction.

X.   $100,000 Wire Transfer

      In 2001 Mr. Rowell and a fellow businessman, Phil Weber (Mr.

Weber), began discussing a possible joint investment in a charter

school to be formed by Mr. Weber and another individual.   Mr.

Weber worked hard on the project during 2002, and he aspired to

form the school.

      On December 31, 2002, as part of the joint investment, Mr.

Rowell caused $100,000 to be transferred from a PLC operating

account to the bank account of Sandra Raposa (Ms. Raposa).    Ms.

Raposa was the domestic partner of Mr. Weber, and she (at the

request of Mr. Weber) accepted the $100,000 transfer on his

behalf.   Mr. Weber used Ms. Raposa’s account because he did not

have a bank account at the time.   Mr. Rowell caused the $100,000

to be transferred so late in 2000 because Mr. Rowell anticipated

claiming for that year a tax deduction (or a tax credit) as to

the payment.   As of that time, Messrs. Rowell and Weber did not

have a set investment plan.

      On January 2, 2003, Ms. Raposa transferred $88,500 of the

$100,000 to a personal account of the Rowells.   She did so

because Messrs. Rowell and Weber did not yet have a set

investment plan and Mr. Weber did not want to keep the funds in

Ms. Raposa’s account without such a plan.   Mr. Rowell used the
                                - 23 -

$88,500 to pay down a loan he had received in his individual

capacity.   Mr. Weber retained the remaining $11,500 as a payment

due him for previous business dealings with Mr. Rowell.

Respondent asserts in the amendment to answer in docket No.

27629-07 that the $100,000 is a constructive dividend that the

Rowells failed to include in their income for 2002.

      The charter school project fell through in April or May of

2003 when the individual whom Mr. Weber had been dealing with

opted out of the project.

XI.   The Rowells’ Additional Income Reported on Amended
      California Returns

      On December 21, 2005, Mr. Rowell retained an enrolled agent,

Donald Cormier, Sr. (Mr. Cormier), to replace Mr. Cutter as

petitioners’ representative in the audit because Mr. Rowell was

no longer comfortable with Mr. Cutter’s representation of

petitioners’ interests.     Mr. Cormier met with the agent, and he

gave the agent information the agent requested.    On October 2,

2006, the agent gave Mr. Cormier respondent’s proposed reports

for the Rowells’ 2000, 2001, and 2002 taxable years, and the

agent discussed those proposed reports with Mr. Cormier.    Mr.

Cormier then discussed the proposed reports with Mr. Rowell.

      Mr. Rowell anticipated that respondent’s audit would cause

the State of California to audit petitioners’ 2000 through 2002

State income tax returns, and he thought that the Rowells would

not have to pay the State of California any penalty for those
                                     - 24 -

years if he voluntarily informed the State that the Rowells had

realized more income than they had previously reported to the

State.    On December 29, 2006, the Rowells filed amended

California income tax returns to report additional income of

$789,287, $572,181, and $349,915 for 2000, 2001, and 2002,

respectively.   The amended California returns reflected the

following information:

              AGI       State Tax                             State Tax
           Originally   Originally      AGI on Amended        on Amended
   Year    Reported      Reported     California Returns   California Returns

   2000     $77,950        $291               $867,237        $75,204
   2001      26,110         -0-                598,291         50,067
   2002      12,243         -0-                362,249         25,327

     Mr. Cormier’s accounting firm prepared the amended

California returns on the basis of the amounts of additional

income that Mr. Rowell told Mr. Cormier to report.              Mr. Rowell

set the amounts of that income to generate a State tax liability

that represented a portion of the Federal income tax adjustment

proposed by respondent.     The amended California returns stated

that the Rowells had become aware of additional income not

reported on their State returns but did not disclose that

petitioners’ Federal income tax returns for the related years

were under audit by the Internal Revenue Service.              The Rowells

paid the State income tax liabilities reported on the amended

California returns.     The Rowells did not tell the agent that they

filed the amended California returns.
                                  - 25 -

       The Rowells did not amend any of their Federal income tax

returns for 2000 through 2002.

XII.    Notices of Deficiency

        On August 31, 2007, respondent mailed petitioners the

notices of deficiency in issue.

                                  OPINION

I.     Burden of Proof

        A.    Deficiencies Listed in the Notices of Deficiency

        The Commissioner’s determinations of deficiencies in tax (as

listed in a notice of deficiency) generally are presumed correct,

and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those determinations

wrong.       See Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933); Durando v. United States, 70 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir.

1995).       The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an

appeal of these cases would lie, has held that the presumption of

correctness attaches to a notice of deficiency in unreported

income cases only when the Commissioner establishes a minimal

evidentiary foundation demonstrating that the taxpayer received

unreported income.       See Palmer v. U.S. IRS, 116 F.3d 1309, 1312-

1313 (9th Cir. 1997); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268,

1270 (9th Cir. 1982).       Once such a foundation is established, as

it is here, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove the

portion of the unreported income that is not taxable.       See Hardy

v. Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999), affg. T.C.
                                - 26 -

Memo. 1997-97; Palmer v. U.S. IRS, supra at 1312-1313.

Accordingly, petitioners bear the burden of proof as to the

deficiencies listed in the notices of deficiency.     This is true

as to both the unreported income and the disallowed deductions

underlying those deficiencies.10

     B.   Increased Deficiencies

     Respondent in an amendment to answer in docket No. 27629-07

asserts that the Rowells are liable for deficiencies in amounts

greater than the amounts listed in the corresponding notices of

deficiency.   Respondent bears the burden of proof as to these

increased deficiencies.   See Rule 142(a)(1).

     C.   Fraud

     Respondent determined (or asserts in his answer or an

amendment thereto) that petitioners are liable for fraud

penalties under section 6663.    Respondent must prove fraud by

clear and convincing evidence.     See sec. 7454(a); Rule 142(b);

Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1123 (1983).




     10
      While sec. 7491(a)(1) provides that the burden of proof
shifts to the Commissioner in certain cases, we conclude that
this is not one of those cases. Petitioners have neither alleged
in their petitions nor asserted in their opening brief that sec.
7491(a) applies here. Nor have petitioners established that they
have met the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to
substantiate items, to maintain required records, and to
cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable requests. See
Weaver v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 273, 275 (2003).
                                 - 27 -

II.   Bank Deposits Analysis

      A.   Overview

      Gross income includes all income from whatever source

derived, see sec. 61(a), and taxpayers are required to keep books

and records sufficient to establish their Federal income tax

liabilities, see sec. 6001; see also sec. 1.6001-1(a), (b), (e),

Income Tax Regs.      Where taxpayers fail to maintain adequate

records to establish that liability, the Commissioner may

reconstruct their income by any method that the Commissioner

believes reflects income clearly.      See sec. 446(b); see also

Palmer v. U.S. IRS, supra at 1312; Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C.

654, 658 (1990); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 686-687

(1989).    The Commissioner’s method need not be exact; however, it

must be reasonable in light of the surrounding facts and

circumstances.    See Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121

(1954); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, supra at 687; see also

Cracchiola v. Commissioner, 643 F.2d 1383, 1384-1385 (9th Cir.

1981) (stating that the Commissioner’s method of reconstructing

income is reasonable if it is “rationally based”), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1979-3.

      Respondent reconstructed petitioners’ income by using the

bank deposits method.      The bank deposits method is an acceptable

method for reconstructing income.      See Harper v. Commissioner,

54 T.C. 1121 (1970); see also United States v. Stone, 770 F.2d
                                - 28 -

842, 844 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Commissioner may use

the bank deposits method to establish a deficiency to support a

conviction for attempted income tax evasion).    Funds deposited in

a taxpayer’s bank accounts are presumed to be from a taxable

source unless the taxpayer establishes they are from a nontaxable

source (e.g., from gifts, loans, or transfers between bank

accounts).    See Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 645-646

(1994); see also Calhoun v. United States, 591 F.2d 1243, 1245

(9th Cir. 1978); Price v. United States, 335 F.2d 671, 677 (5th

Cir. 1964).

     B.    Knutsen’s Disputed Income

     Respondent’s initial bank deposits analysis of Knutsen’s

bank accounts showed that Knutsen’s deposits for 2001 and 2002

were $38,393 and $62,712, respectively, less than the gross

receipts reported on Knutsen’s 2001 and 2002 Federal income tax

returns.     Petitioners argue that Knutsen may adjust its reported

gross receipts to match the reduced amounts reflected in

respondent’s initial bank deposits analysis.    We disagree.

Petitioners cite no authority (nor are we aware of any authority)

which allows a corporate taxpayer such as Knutsen to reduce its

reported gross receipts to the amount of its deposits as

ascertained through a bank deposits analysis without further

proof that the lower amount is correct.    Such is especially so

where, as here, the record does not establish that Knutsen’s
                                - 29 -

reported gross receipts reflected only the amounts that Knutsen

deposited into its bank accounts and respondent’s superseding

bank deposits analysis reflected gross receipts that were not

deposited into Knutsen’s bank accounts.     See United States v.

Soulard, 730 F.2d 1292, 1296 n.1 (9th Cir. 1984) (explaining that

a bank deposits analysis requires that amounts deposited into

bank accounts be increased by income not deposited into the bank

accounts (citing United States v. Hall, 650 F.2d 994, 996 n.4

(9th Cir. 1981))).     We also note that respondent’s initial

analysis omitted $18,055 and $23,602 of gross receipts

attributable to Knutsen’s doll business on the belief that the

doll business was Mrs. Rowell’s business.     We hold for respondent

on this issue.

     C.     PLC’s Disputed Income

     Respondent’s bank deposits analysis of PLC’s accounts

determined that PLC failed to report gross receipts of $184,047

for 1999, $51,652 for 2000, $60,032 for 2001, and $4,749 for

2002.     Petitioners concede that respondent correctly determined

PLC’s deposits for each year but argue that respondent failed to

characterize PLC’s advanced client costs reimbursements as

nontaxable income.     Petitioners argue that those reimbursements

are nontaxable pursuant to Herrick v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 562

(1975), because they are akin to the repayment of a loan.
                              - 30 -

     We disagree with petitioners’ assertion that PLC is entitled

to an adjustment with respect to respondent’s treatment of its

advanced client costs.   While respondent included the

reimbursements in PLC’s reconstructed gross receipts, respondent

also allowed the related costs to be deducted.   Thus, if we were

to accept petitioners’ invitation now to exclude the

reimbursements from income because they are akin to the repayment

of loans, we would be compelled to deny the accompanying

deductions because they are akin to the making of loans.    While

petitioners are correct that advanced client costs are generally

considered to be loans rather than expenses, and hence that the

reimbursements of these costs are generally considered nontaxable

income as are amounts received in repayment of loans, petitioners

have offered no reason why respondent’s treatment of these costs

does not accomplish the same result in these cases.    Nor have

petitioners persuaded us that any advanced client cost that was

reflected in the reconstructed gross receipts was not deducted

from their gross income.

     Petitioners also identify nine deposits in respondent’s bank

deposits analysis that petitioners claim represent nontaxable

income.   These deposits are in the amounts of $10,000, $5,000,

$3,500, $5,000, $5,000, $10,000, $3,000, $15,000, and $30,000.

Petitioners state that these deposits “appear to be either

shareholder loan repayments, interbank transfers or partnership
                                - 31 -

distributions” because PLC had “no likely source of income that

would generate ‘round’ number deposits”.     Petitioners ask the

Court to characterize these deposits as nontaxable income.

       We decline to do so.   As stated above, PLC’s bank deposits

are prima facie evidence of income, and all money deposited into

PLC bank accounts is presumed to reflect taxable income unless

petitioners establish otherwise.     Petitioners have not submitted

sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption.     Petitioners’ mere

belief that the amounts “appear” to be from a nontaxable source

and that PLC did not have a “likely source of income” that would

be in “round” numbers is not sufficient to disprove respondent’s

determination under the bank deposits analysis.11

III.    The Rowells’ Disputed Income

       A.   Overview

       Respondent adjusted the Rowells’ income to reflect his

determination that they received constructive distributions from

the subject corporations.     Respondent also adjusted the Rowells’

income to reflect the disallowed NOL deduction.     Respondent also

adjusted the Rowells’ income to reflect the amended California

returns and the $100,000 transfer to Ms. Raposa’s account.      We

address each adjustment in turn.



       11
      Nor have petitioners established that a $7,773 deposit in
2000 represents nontaxable income. They have established,
however, that a $23,980 deposit in 2001 is not taxable income in
that it was a repayment of a loan to a client.
                                - 32 -

     B.   Constructive Distributions

            1.   Overview

     Respondent determined that the Rowells received constructive

distributions from the subject corporations and that some of the

distributions were taxable to the Rowells as constructive

dividends while others were taxable to the Rowells as capital

gains.    We agree with this determination for the most part.

            2.   Rules Applicable to Distributions

     Under section 301, funds (or other property) distributed by

a corporation to a shareholder with respect to its stock are

taxable under section 301(c).    Under sections 301(c) and 316, a

distribution is taxed to the distributee shareholder as a

dividend to the extent of the distributor corporation’s E & P.

Any excess is considered to be a nontaxable return of capital to

the extent of the shareholder’s basis in the corporation, and any

remaining amount is then taxable to the shareholder as a gain

from the sale or exchange of property.    See sec. 301(c)(2) and

(3); Truesdell v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1280, 1295-1298 (1987).

Section 301 characterizes a distribution as a dividend regardless

of whether the distribution is formally declared to be a

dividend.    See Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421, 429

(2008); Truesdell v. Commissioner, supra at 1295; see also Noble

v. Commissioner, 368 F.2d 439, 442 (9th Cir. 1966), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1965-84.
                              - 33 -

     Corporate funds that a controlling shareholder diverts to

personal use are generally characterized as constructive

distributions to the shareholder for tax purposes.   See Erickson

v. Commissioner, 598 F.2d 525, 531 (9th Cir. 1979), affg. in part

and revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1976-147; Strong v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2005-125.   Such a diversion may occur, for example,

where a corporation makes a distribution to a controlling

shareholder that serves no legitimate corporate purpose and the

distribution results in an economic benefit to the shareholder.

See Strong v. Commissioner, supra; see also Meridian Wood Prods.

Co. v. United States, 725 F.2d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 1984).   Such

a diversion also may occur where a controlling shareholder causes

a corporation to pay his or her personal expense and the payment

primarily benefits the shareholder and is made without

expectation of repayment or without a bona fide intent that it be

in repayment of a shareholder loan.    See Hood v. Commissioner,

115 T.C. 172, 179-180 (2000); see also Noble v. Commissioner,

supra at 443; Clark v. Commissioner, 266 F.2d 698, 710-711 (9th

Cir. 1959), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C. Memo.

1957-129.

     The subject corporations’ payments of the Rowells’ personal

expenses primarily benefited the Rowells, and the payments had no
                              - 34 -

connection with the subject corporations’ businesses.12

Petitioners claim that the distributions were either repayments

of shareholder loans or the making of shareholder loans and

therefore that the distributions were erroneously characterized

as distributions.   We carefully scrutinize this claim and give

greater weight to the objective indicia of debt than to

petitioners’ self-serving statements of intent.   See Turner v.

Commissioner, 812 F.2d 650, 654 (11th Cir. 1987), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1985-159; Berry Petroleum Co. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 104

T.C. 584, 642 (1995), affd. without published opinion 142 F.3d

442 (9th Cir. 1998).   The critical question is whether the

Rowells and the subject corporations intended at the time of the

distributions to create a bona fide debtor/creditor relationship.

See Estate of Chism v. Commissioner, 322 F.2d 956, 960 (9th Cir.

1963), affg. Chism Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1962-6.   Factors to consider in answering this question include:

(1) Whether the promise to repay is evidenced by a note or other

instrument; (2) whether interest was charged; (3) whether a fixed

schedule for repayment was established; (4) whether collateral

was given to secure payment; (5) whether repayments were made;

(6) whether the borrower had a reasonable prospect of repaying

the loan and whether the lender had sufficient funds to advance


     12
      Payees included, for example, the Rowells’ housekeeper,
gardener, grocers, tailor, hair stylist, insurer, pool cleaner,
utility providers, and medical care providers.
                              - 35 -

the loan; and (7) whether the parties conducted themselves as if

the transaction was a loan.   See Welch v. Commissioner, 204 F.3d

1228, 1230 (9th Cir. 2000), affg. T.C. Memo. 1998-121; see also

Commissioner v. Valley Morris Plan, 305 F.2d 610, 618 (9th Cir.

1962) (defining a “loan” for Federal tax purposes as “‘an

agreement, either expressed or implied, whereby one person

advances money to the other and the other agrees to repay it upon

such terms as to time and rate of interest, or without interest,

as the parties may agree’” (quoting Natl. Bank of Paulding v.

Fidelity & Cas. Co., 131 F. Supp. 121, 123-124 (S.D. Ohio 1954)),

revg. 33 T.C. 572 (1959) and Morris Plan Co. v. Commissioner, 33

T.C. 720 (1960).   We are mindful that formalities are not always

followed where, as here, the setting involves shareholders and

their closely held corporations.   See, e.g., Teymourian v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-232.

     We reject petitioners’ claim as unsupported by the record.

The record does not establish that the subject corporations and

the Rowells intended at the time of any distribution that the

distribution be an actual repayment of a loan to a shareholder or

the actual making of a loan to a shareholder.   Nor does the

record establish that the Rowells and the subject corporations

conducted themselves as if the distributed amounts were loans or

repayments of loans.   The purported shareholder loans were not

evidenced by notes or other writings, they were not secured by
                               - 36 -

collateral, they did not require the payment of interest, and

they were not subject to repayment schedules or to any specific

terms of repayment.    The Rowells and the subject corporations did

not record the amount of any loan between them or otherwise keep

track of it accurately.   The distributed amounts were not

contemporaneously designated as the proceeds of a loan or the

repayment of a loan.   Petitioners also have not persuaded us that

there was any outstanding loan at the time of any distribution

(other than those loans that were reflected in the payments for

which respondent gave the Rowells credit in arriving at the

amounts of the distributions),13 or that the Rowells reimbursed

the subject corporations any of the funds reflected in the

distributions.   Nor have they persuaded us that either the

Rowells or the subject corporations had sufficient funds either

to make loans of that magnitude or to repay loans of that

magnitude.   In fact, it appears from the record that the subject

corporations’ repayment to the Rowells of any loan of that



     13
      While PLC reported significant amounts of outstanding
shareholder loans at the end of 2000, 2001, and 2002 and Knutsen
reported significant amounts of outstanding loans at the end of
2001 and 2002, respondent determined that neither subject
corporation had any outstanding shareholder loan as of those
dates. Petitioners have failed to prove that determination
wrong. We note in this regard that petitioners have effectively
conceded that the subject corporations substantially overstated
the amounts of the shareholder loans reported on the returns in
issue and have introduced no credible evidence that allows the
Court to find amounts that are different from those respondent
determined.
                              - 37 -

magnitude would not be assured with any reasonable likelihood but

would be subject to the risk of the success of the subject

corporations’ businesses.   Cf. Estate of Mixon v. United States,

464 F.2d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 1972) (factor to consider in deciding

whether a payment reflects debt or equity).     In sum, petitioners

have failed to establish that the requisite bona fide

debtor/creditor relationship existed between the Rowells and the

subject corporations at the time of any of these distributions,

and such is so notwithstanding our recognition that shareholders

and their closely held corporations may sometimes be lax in

formalizing their dealings with each other.14    We sustain

respondent’s determinations set forth in the notices of

deficiency as to the total amounts of the constructive

distributions (subject to our adjustment discussed supra note 8).

          3.   E & P

     As discussed supra, the constructive distributions to the

Rowells are deemed to be dividends to them to the extent of each

distributor’s E & P.   Respondent determined each corporation’s


     14
      We have no doubt that a shareholder and his or her closely
held corporation can enter into regular loans with each other or
can enter into an agreement whereby the corporation pays for all
of the shareholder’s personal expenses and the amounts of those
payments are considered to be loans between the two. We believe,
however, that such an agreement must be accompanied by reliable
outward manifestations of debt, given the close relationship
between the shareholder and the corporation and the risk of
abuse, and we do not find that the distributions at hand have
sufficient manifestations or specificity of debt other than as
established through the bald assertions of Mr. Rowell.
                                 - 38 -

E & P, and that determination is presumed to be correct.     See

DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 884 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16

(2d Cir. 1992); see also Rule 142(a)(1).     Petitioners set forth

no specific argument in response to respondent’s determinations

of each corporation’s E & P, and petitioners have failed to

disprove those determinations.     We sustain them, subject to any

adjustment to E & P that results from this opinion.15

             4.   Characterization of Constructive Distributions

     Respondent’s application of the rules of section 301(c) to

the constructive distributions received by the Rowells is set

forth in our findings of fact.     We have reviewed those

computations, and we sustain them subject to any adjustment that

must be made in accordance with this opinion.

     C.     NOL Deduction

     The Rowells claimed on their Federal income tax return for

2000 that they were entitled to deduct an NOL of $31,996.

Respondent determined that the Rowells were not entitled to this

deduction.     We agree.

     Section 172 allows a taxpayer to deduct an NOL for a taxable

year.     The amount of the NOL deduction equals the sum of the NOL

carryovers plus NOL carrybacks to that year.     See sec. 172(a).

Absent an election to the contrary, an NOL for a taxable year


     15
      Petitioners also do not dispute respondent’s determination
that each of the Rowells had a $1,000 basis in the stock of his
or her corporation. We sustain that determination as well.
                                 - 39 -

must first be carried back 2 years and then may be carried

forward up to 20 years.     See sec. 172(b)(1)(A), (2), (3).

Petitioners bear the burden of establishing both the existence of

the NOL and the amount of any NOL that may be carried over to

2000.     See Rule 142(a)(1); United States v. Olympic Radio &

Television, Inc., 349 U.S. 232, 235 (1955); Keith v.

Commissioner, 115 T.C. 605, 621 (2000).      Such a deduction is a

matter of legislative grace; it is not a matter of right.       See

United States v. Olympic Radio & Television, Inc., supra at 235;

Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940).

        The Rowells admit that they lack any documentation to

support their NOL deduction claimed for 2002 and have failed to

establish that they otherwise are entitled to any of that claimed

NOL deduction.      We sustain respondent’s determination that the

Rowells are not entitled to the claimed NOL deduction.

        D.   Amended California Returns and Transfers

        Through an amendment to answer, respondent asserts that

petitioners failed to report “other earned income” of $789,287,

$572,181, and $349,915 for 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively,

and additional dividend income of $100,000 for 2002.      The first

three amounts, respondent asserts, result from the Rowells’

filing of the amended California returns reporting income in

amounts greater than the amounts reported for Federal income tax
                               - 40 -

purposes.    The $100,000 dividend, respondent asserts, results

from the $100,000 transfer to Ms. Raposa.

       Respondent argues that the Rowells’ filing of the amended

California returns means that they underreported their Federal

income by like amounts.    Respondent relies primarily upon the

case of Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386 (1984), to

support his result.    Respondent’s reliance upon that case is

misplaced.    There, the Court noted that the filing with the

Commissioner of an amended Federal tax return reporting income

not reported on the initial Federal return may be an admission of

unreported income for Federal income tax purposes.    See id. at

399.    Here, Mr. Rowell testified credibly at trial that he filed

the amended California returns on the basis of a hypothetical

amount of income that would present a “worst case” scenario on

any liability that the Rowells could owe the State of California,

with an eye towards escaping the imposition of any penalties at

the State level.    As respondent sees it, the Rowells voluntarily

reported to the State of California significantly more taxable

income than respondent determined through his extremely long,

arduous, and detailed audit of petitioners’ Federal income tax

returns.    We reject respondent’s claim that the Rowells had

additional income on account of the amended California returns.

On the record before us we do not deem the protective State

returns determinative of the Federal income tax liabilities.
                               - 41 -

      As to the additional income from the $100,000 transfer, we

generally agree with respondent on this point.     Gross income

includes all accessions to wealth over which a taxpayer has

complete dominion, see James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213, 219

(1961); Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431

(1955), and a taxpayer has dominion and control over cash when he

has the freedom to use it at will, see Rutkin v. United States,

343 U.S. 130, 137 (1952).    Mr. Rowell exercised his dominion and

control over the $100,000 when he caused PLC to transfer that

money to Ms. Raposa in connection with an investment contemplated

by Mr. Rowell.   While petitioners invite the Court to treat this

distribution as occurring in 2003, i.e., the year in which

$88,500 of that amount was transferred to their personal account,

we decline to do so.    The $100,000 was transferred from PLC’s

account in 2002 for the personal benefit of Mr. Rowell.     That is

the year in which it is taxable.    See Ianniello v. Commissioner,

98 T.C. 165 (1992).16

IV.   Knutsen’s Disputed Deductions and Expenses

      Respondent disallowed all of Knutsen’s reported deductions

for 2001 and 2002, except for $2,681 and $4,063 of deductions

that Knutsen claimed for the respective years as “other



      16
      Of course, the treatment of the $100,000 must take account
of sec. 301(c). We leave it to the parties to compute the
portion of the $100,000 that is taxable as a dividend and the
portion that is taxable as a capital gain.
                                - 42 -

deductions”.   Petitioners argue that they may deduct some or all

of the disallowed amounts because Knutsen engaged in the doll

business for profit, and petitioners substantiated Knutsen’s

entitlement to the disallowed amounts through documentation and

the testimony of Mrs. Rowell.    We agree in part.

     The parties spend undue time disputing the applicability of

section 183 to Knutsen’s doll business and, more specifically,

whether Knutsen had the profit motive described in that section

so as not to preclude Knutsen from deducting certain amounts

attributable to its doll business.       The parties’ reliance upon

section 183 is misplaced.   Section 183 does not apply where, as

here, the taxpayer (Knutsen) is a C corporation.       See sec. 183(a)

(stating that deductions may be limited by section 183 when “an

activity engaged in by an individual or an S corporation * * * is

not engaged in for profit”); sec. 1.183-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

(stating that no inference may be drawn from section 183 and its

regulations as to whether a C corporation is engaged in an

activity for profit); see also Misko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2005-166 (stating that section 183 does not apply to C

corporations).17




     17
      Respondent also argues that the Rowells, rather than
Knutsen, conducted the doll business. The facts at hand
establish to the contrary, e.g., that Knutsen (as opposed to the
Rowells) realized revenue from the doll business and paid the
expenses of that business.
                                 - 43 -

      As otherwise framed by the parties, our resolution of this

issue turns on whether Knutsen substantiated the amounts that it

claimed as deductions.     Mrs. Rowell explained at trial the manner

in which Knutsen paid its business expenses, and the record

includes documentary evidence supporting Knutsen’s claim that it

purchased dolls and paid operating expenses during 2001 and 2002.

We list in our findings of fact the expenses and costs of goods

sold that Knutsen claimed for 2001 and 2002.       We conclude that

Knutsen is entitled to those items with two exceptions.       First,

petitioners concede that one-half of the amount of the research

expenses was paid for the personal expenses of the Rowells.

Knutsen may not deduct those personal expenses of $6,906 for 2001

and $6,695 for 2002.     Second, petitioners concede that Knutsen’s

cost of goods sold deductions for 2001 and 2002 are limited to

the amounts of its doll sales in those respective years.       Thus,

pursuant to petitioners’ concession, Knutsen’s costs of goods

sold for 2001 and 2002 are capped at $18,055 and $23,602,

respectively.

V.   Petitioners’ Liability for Fraud

      A.    Overview

      We decide whether any of petitioners is liable for a fraud

penalty under section 6663.18     Respondent determined (or asserts


      18
           In relevant part, sec. 6663 provides:

                                                        (continued...)
                              - 44 -

in his answer or an amendment thereto) that each petitioner is

liable for fraud penalties under section 6663.   Section 6663(a)

imposes a penalty of 75 percent of the portion of an underpayment

that is attributable to fraud.   In order to establish fraud,

respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that:    (1)

Petitioners underpaid their Federal income taxes, and (2) some

part of each underpayment was due to fraud.   See Powell v.

Granquist, 252 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1958); Parks v. Commissioner,

94 T.C. 654, 660-661 (1990); Miller v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 316,

332 (1990).   If respondent meets this burden, we consider all of

the underpayments to be attributable to fraud unless petitioners

establish otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.   See sec.

6663(b).




     18
      (...continued)
     SEC. 6663. IMPOSITION OF FRAUD PENALTY.

          (a) Imposition of Penalty.--If any part of any
     underpayment of tax required to be shown on a return is
     due to fraud, there shall be added to the tax an amount
     equal to 75 percent of the portion of the underpayment
     which is attributable to fraud.

          (b) Determination of Portion Attributable to
     Fraud.--If the Secretary establishes that any portion
     of an underpayment is attributable to fraud, the entire
     underpayment shall be treated as attributable to fraud,
     except with respect to any portion of the underpayment
     which the taxpayer establishes (by a preponderance of
     the evidence) is not attributable to fraud.
                                 - 45 -

     B.    Underpayment of Tax

     Petitioners concede that they underpaid their taxes for each

year to which the notices of deficiency apply.      We conclude as to

each of those years that respondent has met the first part of his

burden of proof; i.e., establishing underpayments of tax.

     C.     Presence of Fraud

     The second part of respondent’s burden requires that he

establish the presence of fraud.     Fraud requires an intentional

wrongdoing on the part of a taxpayer with the specific purpose of

evading a tax believed to be owing.       See Powell v. Granquist,

supra at 60; Miller v. Commissioner, supra at 332.      Such a

fraudulent intent is present where a taxpayer files a return

intending to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the

collection of tax.     See Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499

(1943); Akland v. Commissioner, 767 F.2d 618, 621 (9th Cir.

1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983-249; Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C.

85, 93 (1970).     A finding of a fraudulent intent is a factual

determination that turns on the facts and circumstances of the

case.     See Gajewski v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976),

affd. without published opinion 578 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978).

Where fraud is determined for multiple years, as here, the

Commissioner must establish a fraudulent intent for each year in

order to prevail for all years.     See Otsuki v. Commissioner,

53 T.C. 96, 105 (1969).
                              - 46 -

     Fraud is never presumed or imputed; it must be established

by independent evidence that establishes a fraudulent intent on

the taxpayer’s part.   See Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.

202, 210 (1992).   Because direct proof of a taxpayer’s intent is

rarely available, fraud may be proven by circumstantial evidence

and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the relevant facts.

See id.   We often rely on certain indicia of fraud to decide

whether fraud is present.   The “badges of fraud” include:

(1) Understatement of income; (2) maintenance of inadequate

records; (3) failure to file tax returns; (4) implausible or

inconsistent explanations of behavior; (5) concealment of income

or assets; (6) failure to cooperate with tax authorities; (7)

engaging in illegal activities; (8) dealing in cash; (9) failure

to make estimated tax payments; and (10) filing false documents.

See Estate of Trompeter v. Commissioner, 279 F.3d 767, 773 (9th

Cir. 2002), vacating and remanding 111 T.C. 57 (1998); Bradford

v. Commissioner, 796 F.2d 303, 307-308 (9th Cir. 1986), affg.

T.C. Memo. 1984-601; Recklitis v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 874, 910

(1988); see also Spies v. United States, supra at 499-500.

     Respondent argues that the Rowells are financially

sophisticated and tax-savvy individuals who were intimately

involved with and highly knowledgeable of petitioners’ finances

and who consciously perpetrated a scheme for petitioners to evade

Federal income taxes by understating income and overstating
                              - 47 -

deductions.   We are not clearly convinced that such is the case.

Nor are we persuaded by respondent’s view of the indicia of fraud

that support his findings of fraud.

     First, we disagree with respondent’s view that the Rowells’

understanding of taxes and their involvement with and knowledge

of petitioners’ finances support the requisite finding of fraud.

The record establishes, and we find as facts, that neither of the

Rowells is proficient on the subject of tax law or on the

requirements thereof and that each of the Rowells devoted long

hours to his or her profession to the neglect of recordkeeping

responsibilities.   In addition, we are left unpersuaded by the

record that the Rowells knew that petitioners’ reported tax

liabilities failed to reflect petitioners’ true tax liabilities.

Although respondent notes that Mr. Rowell was the source of most

of the data reported on petitioners’ returns, we do not find that

Mr. Rowell understood the tax significance of that data or

sufficiently consulted petitioners’ records (or attempted to

compile supporting documentation) before giving that data to Mr.

Cutter.   We do find, however, that Mr. Cutter was of limited

assistance to the Rowells when it came to their receiving

professional advice on the preparation of petitioners’ returns

and that he chose to prepare those returns quickly rather than

accurately.
                              - 48 -

     Second, we disagree with respondent’s view that petitioners’

underreporting of income on each of the subject returns leads to

a finding that petitioners intended to evade Federal income tax.

Instead, as similarly discussed above, it appears more likely

that the underpayments in these cases were due to the Rowells’

attempt to file petitioners’ tax returns without properly and

sufficiently reviewing petitioners’ records and to Mr. Rowell’s

belief that PLC’s unrecovered advanced client costs and Knutsen’s

inventory purchases, each of which was substantial in amount,

would sufficiently offset PLC’s and Knutsen’s income for those

years.

     Third, we disagree with respondent’s view that petitioners

failed to maintain adequate records with an intent to evade

Federal income tax.   Petitioners maintained their records in

Quicken, their computerized accounting system, but they failed to

maintain sufficient documentation to support their entries into

the Quicken database.   The Rowells also did not maintain

sufficient records to allow them to ascertain the expenses

incurred by them and by each of the corporate entities.     The

Rowells had themselves and two other taxpayers to account for,

and they failed to respect the separate status of each of the

subject corporations.   Under the facts at hand, however, we are

not clearly convinced that petitioners’ recordkeeping

deficiencies in these cases were attributable to fraud as
                                - 49 -

respondent asserts.   It appears more likely, as we find, that

petitioners’ recordkeeping deficiencies are the result of

negligence as petitioners concede.

     Fourth, we disagree with respondent’s view that the Rowells

failed to cooperate with respondent during the audit in a further

attempt to evade Federal tax.    By the agent’s own admission,

respondent’s determination of fraud was spearheaded by the slow

pace at which Mr. Rowell was allowing the agent to complete the

audit.   While Mr. Rowell did in fact reschedule many appointments

with the agent because of conflicts with his work schedule, and

he was slow to get documents to the agent as requested, Mr.

Rowell eventually met with the agent on various occasions and he

repeatedly provided the agent with documents and with answers.

On one occasion, for example, at the beginning of the audit, the

agent demanded of Mr. Cutter that Mr. Rowell appear in person by

the end of the day.   Mr. Rowell complied with that demand, almost

immediately abandoning his work commitments to appear before the

agent shortly thereafter and to allow the agent to interview him

at length.   Mrs. Rowell also met with and allowed herself to be

interviewed by the agent.   Mr. Rowell also tried earnestly on the

basis of the limited information he had to provide a solid

foundation to respondent to support the deductions claimed on

petitioners’ returns.   Mr. Rowell, on behalf of petitioners, also

agreed with respondent’s requests to extend the applicable
                              - 50 -

periods of limitation for assessment so that a more complete

audit could be performed.   While it appears that Mr. Rowell may

have made some inconsistent statements to the agent during the

audit and provided to the agent some documents which were

facially inconsistent with each other, we do not conclude in the

setting of the record as a whole that he consciously did so to

hinder the audit.19

     Fifth, we disagree with respondent’s view that fraud is

found in the fact that the Rowells caused the subject

corporations to pay the Rowells’ personal expenses.   The Rowells

use of corporate funds to pay their personal expenses and their

use of their personal credit cards to pay the subject

corporations’ business expenses appear to us to be the result of

seeking convenience and lack of attention to detail rather than a

conscious and clever scheme to avoid Federal income taxes as

asserted by respondent.   The Rowells repeatedly used corporate

funds to pay their personal expenses, and they apparently thought

(without a supporting foundation) that the payments were loans

from the subject corporations to their shareholders (or




     19
      Respondent also asserts that the Rowells failed to
cooperate in the audit in that they did not inform the agent they
had filed the amended California returns and did not volunteer
information or documents on their and their corporations’
financial holdings. We do not believe that the matter in those
assertions is indicia of fraud in the setting of these cases.
                               - 51 -

repayments of such loans).20   Mr. Rowell had a loan repayment due

from the corporation in 1999 which was accepted as such by

respondent.   Subsequently, he was cavalier about maintaining

accurate records of the amounts paid by the corporation for his

benefit, but we see his actions as negligent rather than

fraudulent.   While the subject corporations may have deducted

some of these personal payments as business expenses, we are left

unconvinced on the basis of the record at hand that the

corporations did so intending to evade tax.

     Respondent also finds fraud in the $100,000 transfer to Ms.

Raposa and the fact that PLC failed to report income that it

received as a partner of the Cheong firm.   We do not do the same.

We consider it unlikely that Mr. Rowell would have entered into a

fraudulent transaction as to the $100,000 given that at the time

petitioners were under examination by the Internal Revenue

Service.   We also consider it unlikely that Mr. Rowell was

consciously attempting to conceal the income he received from the

Cheong firm given that the firm had reported that amount to both

Mr. Rowell and to the Internal Revenue Service.   For the same

reason, we also do not believe that PLC’s failure to report its

interest income correctly was a conscious attempt to conceal its

receipt of that income.   Nor do we believe that PLC’s isolated



     20
      This explains to our satisfaction why the Rowells did not
report all of the constructive distributions as income.
                                 - 52 -

deposits into the Rowells’ personal bank account of the $8,220 in

legal fees and the $27,073 in chess winnings evidences that

intent.21

      D.    Conclusion

      After our detailed review of the facts and circumstances of

these cases, in conjunction with our analysis of the applicable

badges of fraud, we conclude that respondent has not clearly and

convincingly proven a fraudulent intent on the part of any

petitioner.      We hold that none of petitioners is liable for a

fraud penalty under section 6663.

VI.   Epilogue

      All of the parties’ arguments have been considered.      We have

rejected those not discussed herein as meritless.        Accordingly,


                                            Decisions will be entered

                                       under Rule 155.




      21
      Respondent also finds fraud in the Rowells’
misrepresentation of their income to a proposed mortgagee and to
the State of California. While we do not condone that practice,
we do not view these actions as clear and convincing evidence of
the requisite fraudulent intent.
