- 24 -
fraud. We therefore reject respondent's determination of a
section 6653(b)(2) addition to tax for 1984.
Issue 3(a): Deficiencies Attributable to Embezzlement Income7
Respondent's deficiency determinations are presumed to be
correct; petitioner bears the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that they are incorrect. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
The evidence proffered by respondent on the underpayments
for fraud purposes was pretty thin gruel; less nourishing to the
point of nonexistence is the case that petitioner presented.
Petitioner failed to carry the burden of overturning the
deficiencies determined by respondent. Petitioner did not prove
that any of the payments to Ron Gelfman, F&M, or W&Y was for a
corporate purpose of the payor. There was no proof that any
Renaissance checks to Ron Gelfman or W&Y were supported by any
actual purchases of jewelry or supplies by Renaissance. The
checks to F&M do reflect actual purchases, but they are purchases
of personal jewelry items, and petitioner did not show what
happened to those items. Petitioner did not prove that the
7 Respondent also determined that petitioner overstated his
itemized deductions for 1984 in the amount of $17,905.
Petitioner presented no evidence at trial on this issue and did
not mention it in his brief. Therefore, petitioner is deemed to
have conceded this issue. In his petition, petitioner argues
that his earlier guilty plea to tax evasion was in full
settlement of all tax liabilities, criminal and civil.
Petitioner has shown no evidence that the plea had any such
effect; we find this contention to be without merit and likewise
conceded because it was not argued at trial.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011