Stanley P. Zurn - Page 5

                                         -5-                                          
          occasion, petitioner would accompany Mr. Nelson to a real                   
          property closing, and petitioner would produce large cashier's              
          checks, which, on occasion, were quite old.  These checks were              
          sometimes from other real property closings, and, in one                    
          instance, Mr. Nelson observed a check approximating $59,000.  Due           
          to Mr. Nelson's accumulation of petitioner's funds, on April 18,            
          1985, Mr. Nelson executed a $115,321.16 promissory note in favor            
          of petitioner.  The $115,321.16 amount represented the balance              
          due to petitioner at that time.  In addition to the amount                  
          represented by the promissory note, Mr. Nelson, at various times,           
          held an additional $120,000 to $130,000 of petitioner's money.              
               On April 17, 1986, petitioner caused $211,433.80 to be                 
          transferred "by wire" from the cotrustee account with Mr. Nelson            
          to petitioner's sole account.  Of the $211,433.80, $3,027                   
          represented interest, which petitioner has conceded should have             
          been reported as income for 1986.                                           
               Petitioner bears the burden of showing that the unexplained            
          deposits remaining in controversy were not includable in his 1986           
          income, as determined by respondent.  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                 
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).  Bank deposits have been held to            
          be prima facie evidence of income.  Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87            
          T.C. 74 (1986); Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 651                
          (1975), affd. 566 F.2d 2 (6th Cir. 1977).                                   







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