Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeInternational TaxationUS Tax Court Imposes Fraud Penalty For Tax Evasion On Unreported Income

US Tax Court Imposes Fraud Penalty For Tax Evasion On Unreported Income

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The US Tax Court has imposed the fraud penalty for tax evasion on unreported income.

The bench of Justice Goeke has observed that he fraudulently failed to pay tax on the income. Fraud is established by showing that a “taxpayer intended to evade tax believed to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such tax.”

During 2010 petitioner Matthew Hutcheson was a trustee and fiduciary of two retirement plans, G Fiduciary Retirement Income Security Plan (G Fid) and the Retirement Security Plan and Trust (RSPT). He diverted $5,307,688 from the plans for his personal benefit. He used G Fid’s plan assets mainly to pay personal expenses, including the purchase and extensive renovation of petitioners’ new home. He used RSPT’s plan assets in his efforts to acquire a resort and golf course. By 2011 the transfers were discovered. 

Ultimately, Mr. Hutcheson was convicted of wire fraud and sentenced to over 17 years’ imprisonment.

The revenue commissioner determined that petitioners had unreported income equal to the amount that Mr. Hutcheson diverted from G Fid and RSPT plus an additional $10,825 in unreported income from other sources. On July 23, 2014, the commissioner issued a Notice of Deficiency to petitioners for 2010 determining a deficiency of $1,925,264, a section 6651(a)(1)  addition to tax of $481,316 for failure to file a return timely, and a section 6663 fraud penalty against only Mr. Hutcheson of $1,443,674. 

Alternatively, he determined a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty against both petitioners. In his Answer respondent decreased the deficiency to $1,842,904, the section 6663 fraud penalty to $1,381,904, and the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax to $460,726.

The court held that the commissioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Hutcheson had $5,307,688 in unreported embezzlement income for 2010 and that he fraudulently failed to pay tax on the income. Fraud is established by showing that a “taxpayer intended to evade tax believed to be owing by conduct intended to conceal, mislead, or otherwise prevent the collection of such tax.”

Case Details

Case Title: Matthew D. Hutcheson And Annette Hutcheson V. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue

Case No.: Docket No. 24959-14

Date: 02/01/2025

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

ICAI Examines Private Equity Funding for Consultancy and Accounting Businesses, Audit Practices to Remain Ring-Fenced

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is examining whether private equity investment...

Foreign Salary Remitted to NRE Account Can’t Be Treated as Unexplained Investment Merely on SFT Data: CIT(A) Deletes ₹1.33 Crore Addition

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, has deleted an addition of ₹1.33 crore...

Export Commission Paid to Foreign Agents for Services Outside India Not Liable to TDS: ITAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that commission...

DGGI | Pre-Charge Evidence Can’t Be Recorded Without Summoning Accused in GST Complaint: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside three orders passed by a...

More like this

ICAI Examines Private Equity Funding for Consultancy and Accounting Businesses, Audit Practices to Remain Ring-Fenced

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is examining whether private equity investment...

Foreign Salary Remitted to NRE Account Can’t Be Treated as Unexplained Investment Merely on SFT Data: CIT(A) Deletes ₹1.33 Crore Addition

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, has deleted an addition of ₹1.33 crore...

Export Commission Paid to Foreign Agents for Services Outside India Not Liable to TDS: ITAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that commission...