- 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