- 23 -
deposits to $356,346, as compared to respondent’s determination
that his gross receipts were $364,247.
The only specific error in respondent’s analysis that
petitioner has alleged is his claim that respondent failed to
take account of amounts that were subsequently refunded to
customers when charters were canceled. As evidence for his
claim, petitioner proffers 14 checks he wrote in 1994 and 12 in
1996. The 1994 checks generally contain a notation that they are
refunds (with two exceptions), while the 1996 checks generally do
not (with two exceptions). There is a fatal defect in most of
these checks; namely, there is no evidence that the payee of the
refund check was included as a source of income in respondent’s
reconstruction of petitioner’s charter receipts. Respondent’s
reconstruction is not necessarily comprehensive. Thus, unless a
refund payee was listed as one of the sources of a deposit in
respondent’s reconstruction, proof that a refund was made to that
payee does not require a downward adjustment in respondent’s
reconstructed total.
For 1994, eight of petitioner’s proffered checks contain the
foregoing defect.16 Six checks remain, four of which, for
$10,314 in the aggregate, have “United Yacht Charters” as the
payee. However, the evidence in the record of respondent’s
16 While it is possible that some of the 1994 checks listed
by petitioner were refunds of amounts deposited in 1993 or
earlier years, petitioner has not established this fact.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011