- 11 -
For reasons discussed herein, we conclude that, except as to
taxable years 1985 and 1986, the statute of limitations does not
preclude assessment and collection of the deficiencies in and
additions to tax determined by respondent. We further conclude
that petitioner has failed to establish a nontaxable source for
the 66 deposits that he made to the foreign account.
Issue 1. Bank Deposits
Bank deposits are prima facie evidence of income, and
petitioner must show that the funds deposited into the foreign
account were not obtained from a taxable source. Rule 142(a);
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). In order to
satisfy his burden, petitioner contends that he had ample
resources from the liquidation of real estate and other assets to
provide the funds needed to make the deposits at issue. He
contends that a sale of 4 real properties in 1979, a receipt of
several periodic installment and balloon payments, the collection
of a mortgage, and a real property sale in 1984 provided him with
the means needed to make the 66 deposits at issue. He then
contends that this "clearly credible evidence" satisfies his
burden and shifts the burden of coming forward to respondent. We
disagree.
Apparently, petitioner fails to appreciate the extent of his
burden of proof; moreover, he has fallen far short in his attempt
to shift the burden of coming forward to respondent. Petitioner
has indeed presented the Court with evidence suggesting that he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011