Robert A. Fisher - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
          to prevent counting of deposits as income twice.  Similarly,                
          amounts that the revenue agent found in the IRP data, and which             
          were also included in the bank deposit records, were removed from           
          the bank deposit calculation to prevent double counting.                    

                                       OPINION                                        

               Petitioner contends that respondent's determinations in the            
          notice of deficiency should not be given a presumption of                   
          correctness because the determinations are arbitrary.                       
          Respondent's determinations are entitled to a presumption of                
          correctness.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111                 
          (1933).  Petitioner's argument implies that, because respondent             
          has made a number of errors or concessions, the notice of                   
          deficiency is therefore arbitrary.  We find no merit to this                
          argument.  A determination that some part of a deficiency is                
          erroneous does not necessarily make the deficiency notice                   
          arbitrary.  Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-788.                     
               We find no flaw in respondent's method of reconstructing               
          petitioner's income using the bank deposits method.  The use of             
          the bank deposits method for computing income has long been                 
          sanctioned by the courts.  When a taxpayer keeps no books or                
          records and has large bank deposits, the Commissioner is not                
          arbitrary or capricious in resorting to the bank deposits method.           
          Mills v. Commissioner, 399 F.2d 744, 749 (4th Cir. 1968), affg.             
          T.C. Memo. 1967-67; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 867                 




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011