- 9 -
petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that such items
represented items of gross income. See Tokarski v. Commissioner,
supra at 77. Therefore, we sustain respondent’s determination of
a deficiency as it relates to such items. We sustain no
deficiency with respect to the deposit of $1,000 to the Astoria
account on December 28, 1987.
Petitioner’s position with respect to the June 23 and
November 13, 1987, chip payments to Trump is unclear. In her
notice of deficiency, respondent included those items as
unreported income and described them as “Unexplained advances -
Libutti”. Petitioner testified that the chip payments, which
repaid a loan made to petitioner by Trump, were made by Libutti.
On brief, petitioner argues that the transactions do not evidence
unreported income because there is no allegation of unreported
gambling winnings. Petitioner’s argument is somewhat beside the
point. These are not items that result from a reconstruction of
petitioner’s income where there is no evidence that petitioner
actually received anything during the period at issue. If this
were such a situation, then petitioner might argue that, until
respondent links petitioner to an income-producing activity,
petitioner does not have the burden of proving he had no income.
See Llorente v. Commissioner, 649 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1981), affg.
in part, revg. in part, and remanding in part 74 T.C. 260 (1980)
(we would follow Llorente because it is likely that any appeal in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011