Emmett I. and Shirley Sindik - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          existence and amount of unreported income by any method that will           
          clearly reflect the taxpayer’s income.  Sec. 446(b); Holland v.             
          United States, 348 U.S. 121, 130-132 (1954); Harper v.                      
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1121 (1970).  The premise underlying this             
          method of income reconstruction is, absent some explanation, that           
          a taxpayer’s bank deposits represent taxable income.  The total             
          of all deposits is determined by the Commissioner to arrive at              
          the taxpayer’s income.  Adjustments are then made to eliminate              
          deposits that reflect nonincome items such as gifts, loans,                 
          transfers between bank accounts, and redeposits.                            
               Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent’s               
          determinations, including unreported income, are incorrect.  Rule           
          142(a); Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1057, 1064 (1978).                
          Petitioners provided no sufficient evidence indicating that the             
          excess deposits into their bank account during the years at issue           
          were attributable to nontaxable sources.                                    
               Petitioners argue that respondent’s use of the bank deposits           
          method does not accurately reflect the amount of unreported                 
          income for the years at issue.  Without more than petitioner’s              
          testimony that he believes respondent’s determinations to be                
          incorrect, however, we have no way of making any adjustments to             
          respondent’s calculations.                                                  
               Accordingly, we find that petitioners have failed to meet              
          their burden of proof, and respondent’s determination with                  






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011