- 182 -
withdrawals in the years 1973 through 1976 in excess of $3
million, which were not included in petitioner's income for those
years, constituted income in the years of the withdrawals. We
will discuss this issue later.
With regard to 1975, respondent on brief has conceded all
previous determinations in the notice of deficiency and
allegations in the amendment to answer and states that "It is now
respondent's position that, in 1975, Zand failed to include
$197,513.88 in income from Ingersoll-Rand that was deposited to
Zand's FNCB account." The only support that respondent cites for
this $197,513.88 deposit is a document that is stipulated to be a
"Schedule of Commissions by Manufacturer showing where deposited"
written by an unknown author. We are not willing to find that
this deposit was in fact made based solely upon this document.
We have serious hearsay concerns about a list of numbers that the
Court knows nothing else about, including the author of those
numbers, and no reason to believe that the document's contents
are accurate. Accordingly, we do not rely upon it for the truth
of its contents without any other evidence in support of this
deposit.27 There being no persuasive evidence of record that the
27 Nor does petitioner admit that this payment was made. Petitioner in
his proposed findings of fact merely states that "those payments did not
constitute income to Petitioner." We are unwilling to interpret this as an
admission that this payment was made.
Page: Previous 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011