- 16 -
of Appeals noted that the Commissioner's determination of
deficiencies is presumptively correct once some substantive
evidence is introduced showing that a taxpayer received
unreported income.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the taxpayers' argument
that this Court's dismissal of their case for failure to properly
prosecute violated their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination. The Court noted in Edwards v. Commissioner, supra
at 1270:
To invoke the fifth amendment privilege, the taxpayer
must be faced with substantial hazards of self-
incrimination that are real and appreciable, and must
have reasonable cause to apprehend such danger. United
States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S.Ct. 3018, 65 L.Ed.2d 1117
(1980). Appellants steadfastly assert that they have
engaged in no criminal activity relating to their auto
repair business, nor is any criminal investigation
pending. Their fifth amendment claim merely rests on a
generalized fear that if forced to turn over their
business records, they somehow would be more likely to
have criminal charges brought against them for tax
evasion. Because there is no indication that
production of their records would reveal criminal
activity in their auto repair business and because the
fifth amendment privilege may not itself be used as a
method of evading payment of lawful taxes, United
States v. Carlson, 617 F.2d 518, 523 (9th Cir.) cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 1010, 101 S.Ct. 564, 66 L.Ed.2d 468
(1980), we reject appellants' fifth amendment claim as
frivolous.
In this case, as in Edwards, the use of one or more of
several indirect methods to reconstruct a taxpayer's income is
permissible. Sec. 446(b). In particular, the use of BLS data
has been approved by this Court. See Giddio v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011