- 29 -
the DAC system on December 31, 1990. As a result of his
forgetfulness, petitioner listed both the MYM expenses and the
DAC expenses on the scratch pads, added them together, and caused
the computer to copy the inflated figure onto his Schedule C.
There is no evidence that petitioner attempted to verify
whether the MYM expenses were already included in the DAC totals,
as in fact they were. On the contrary, petitioner testified that
"I knew I had to get this return done. It was April 15, and * *
* I had to get those figures in there. And I just kind of --
just jumped into it and started keypunching".
Petitioner personally created the DAC Ledger, DAC Accounting
Summary, DAC Accounts Payable Listing, and DAC Trial Balance on
his computer prior to April 15, 1991. No one else made entries
for petitioner. If copies of those records were unavailable on
April 15, 1991, petitioner had only to cause the computer to
generate another copy. Petitioner should have reviewed his own
computer records, as both this Court and respondent have done, to
see that the MYM expenses should not have been listed on the
scratch pads in addition to the DAC expenses. There is no
explanation in the record as to why petitioner did not do so
other than his own testimony that his duplication errors were the
result of haste.
Petitioner's contention that his records were complete and
carefully prepared is self-serving and not supported by the
evidence. The scratch pads were a key component of his tax
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