-17-
on December 10 was a transfer of petitioner's funds from his
checking account. This amount is a redeposit; therefore, it is
not gross income.
B. 1992
Petitioner deposited a total of $90,120 in his checking and
savings accounts in 1992. Except for the two following amounts,
we find the deposits are income to petitioner that is subject to
tax pursuant to section 61(a). The parties stipulated the
$15,000 deposit made on July 2 was the deposit of loan proceeds
that petitioner received from Wachovia. It is well established
that gross income does not include loans. James v. United
States, 366 U.S. 213, 219 (1961); United States v. Rochelle, 384
F.2d 748, 751 (5th Cir. 1967).17 Petitioner submitted a bank
copy of the dating service's canceled $50 refund check. Thus,
petitioner provided evidence that corroborates his testimony
regarding the source of the sole noncash deposit for 1992 into
this savings account. The $50 deposit is the return of a
personal expenditure for which petitioner received no tax benefit
and is, therefore, not taxable income.
C. 1993
Petitioner deposited a total of $126,141 in his checking and
savings accounts in 1993. Except for the following amounts, we
find the deposits are income to petitioner that is subject to
17 See supra note 15.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011