whether or not the debtor willfully attempted to evade or defeat taxes.” Dalton, 77 F.3d at 1301. Thus, nonpayment coupled with the failure to file timely returns, In re Birkenstock, 87 F.3d at 952, or the concealment of assets, In re Bruner, 55 F.3d at 200, demonstrate the conduct requirement of section 523(a)(1)(C). Other factors found sufficient to meet the conduct element include inadequate recordkeeping, intra-family transfers for insufficient consideration, transfers made in the face of serious financial difficulties, and a lavish or extravagant lifestyle. Geiger v. IRS (In re Geiger), 408 B.R. 788, 791 (C.D.Ill.2009); Hamm v. United States (In re Hamm), 356 B.R. 263, 276-77 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2006); see also Volpe v. IRS (In re Volpe), 377 B.R. 579, 587 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2007) (<HOLDING>). Significantly, such acts or omissions are
holding that irs claim for taxes and claim of debtor against irs for violation of automatic stay did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence holding the conduct element satisfied where debtor failed to timely file tax returns and failed to pay taxes for those years holding that the irs proved the conduct element of section 523a1c by showing among other things that a debtor failed to pay his taxes even though he had enough money to pay for nonnecessities such as vacations and private school holding that failure to pay sales taxes is a breach of trust holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to require a defendant to pay all back taxes