- 197 -
whole shows that until 1978 petitioner for the most part was in
control of Diesel Power and is taxable on most payments made or
attributed to Diesel Power. Where the evidence is lacking as to
which employees performed work for these companies, petitioner
has failed to meet his burden of proof. We therefore hold that
with the exception of the 1976 Exxon allegation, petitioner has
failed to meet his burden of proof for these miscellaneous
commissions. With respect to Exxon, respondent asserted an
amount for 1976 greater than the stipulated amounts attributed to
Diesel Power on the CTC receipts journal. We hold that the
stipulated amount of $12,082.61 constitutes the amount of
unreported 1976 income received from Exxon.
L. Petitioner's Withdrawals from Bank Accounts
Respondent makes a further argument that petitioner's income
includes amounts withdrawn from a Diesel Power account and from
the WHIP account at the times the withdrawals were made. Thus,
respondent contends that in the event that we do not hold that
petitioner had unreported commission income in the form of funds
received from Lockheed, Goodyear, Clark, Galion, and Morgan that
were deposited in the Diesel Power Bank of America account, as
well as Lockheed funds that were deposited in the WHIP Barclays
Bahamas account, petitioner had unreported income to the extent
Page: Previous 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011