- 45 -- 45 -
concluded had been included as income in petitioners' 1989 and
1990 returns. Petitioners presented no evidence at trial that
establishes that the miscellaneous deposits at issue for each of
the years 1989 and 1990 were in fact included in the gross
receipts that were reported in Schedule C of their return for
each of those years.
On the instant record, we find that petitioners have failed
to establish that the miscellaneous deposits at issue represent
income that they reported in their returns for those years.
Petitioners assert additional reasons for claiming that the
following two miscellaneous deposits do not constitute income:
(1) A deposit of $6,222.89 on May 30, 1989, into petitioners'
account at the Hillsboro branch of Washington Federal31 that
petitioners claim they obtained from an account at Far West
Federal and (2) a deposit of $1,630.11 on May 2, 1990, into
petitioners' account at that bank that petitioners obtained from
the sale of a 1988 Chevrolet pickup truck.32
31 Although the parties stipulated, and petitioners assert on
brief, that that deposit was a "Transfer to Far West Bank", we
shall disregard that stipulation, see Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989), and that assertion because
they are clearly contrary to facts disclosed by the record. The
following facts are disclosed by the record: (1) A deposit of
$6,222.89 was made into petitioners' account at Washington
Federal on May 30, 1989; and (2) no deposit in that amount was
made into petitioners' account at Far West Federal on May 30,
1989, or on any other date during 1989.
32 Petitioners advance no additional arguments, and the record
does not support a finding, that the remaining miscellaneous
(continued...)
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011