7th Circuit upholds tax, fraud conviction against attorney, wife

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the finding that a Brownsburg attorney and his wife fraudulently withheld their 2001 income from the Internal Revenue Service through an elaborate shell game.

In Scott C. Cole and Jennifer A. Cole v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 10-2194, Scott and Jennifer Cole appealed the finding that they omitted more than $1.2 million of income and more than $1.3 million of self-employment income from their 2001 joint tax return and penalties imposed for fraudulently doing so. Scott, a business planning and tax attorney, formed a partnership with his attorney brother under the Bentley Group. Scott also created other entities – some owned by him and some with other family owners – and used them to transfer income.  

In 2001, Scott performed legal work on a trust that earned him $1.2 million. But instead of reporting that money, it was shifted among the various entities. The Coles underreported their income for 2001 and were eventually audited by the IRS. They petitioned the Tax Court for relief after the IRS determined they significantly underreported their income and assessed a $556,187 income tax deficiency and a $417,140 fraud penalty against the couple. The Tax Court entered a final decision upholding the deficiency and penalty amounts and also assessed an additional $178,000 in deficiency and fraud penalties.

Scott, who represented himself on appeal, only made two arguments the 7th Circuit found could be addressed: whether the Tax Court erred in finding the Coles omitted income from their 2001 tax return; and whether the Tax Court erred in imposing a fraud penalty.

The Coles were unable to produce records supporting the amounts they actually claimed on taxes and the evidence before the Tax Court showed they actually made a great deal more than they claimed, wrote Judge John Tinder. The appellate court also rejected the Coles’ argument that Scott did not actually earn the money but the Bentley Group did. They found the couple’s argument regarding the 2001 filing “only accents the game of thimblerig suggested by Scott’s legal and financial maneuvering.”

The judges also upheld the fraud penalty imposed, noting the Tax Court cited a variety of factors to show the commissioner proved with clear and convincing evidence that the couple understated their 2001 tax liabilities.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  2. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  3. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  4. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  5. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.