In one of the climactic scenes from 1954’s On The Waterfront, Crime Commission prosecutors had to make their corruption case against union boss Johnny Friendly (a/k/a Michael Skelly) by convincing a reticent yet pure-hearted Terry Malloy to come forward and tell what he knew about corruption in the International Longshoremen’s Association, beginning with the murder of Joey Doyle, because an underling insisted that “we were robbed last night and can’t find no books.”
 
If that same case came up in 21st Century tax court, Eva Marie Saint and Karl Malden could’ve stayed at home rather than serving as Marlon Brando’s cheering section, because government prosecutors could reconstruct the ILA’s income, based on the records retention requirements in Section 6500 et seq.
 
In other words, the conventional wisdom that only divine beings can create something out of nothing does not apply in income tax evasion cases. Is it enough for the government to pull a metaphorical rabbit out of a metaphorical hat, or are there some additional requirements?

Learning Objectives:

• Elements of Tax Evasion


• Define Substantial Tax Deficiency


• Methods of Proof