- 44 -
generalized statements about the use of currency to make
purchases. Both Broskin and Bohn testified about Kenmore’s use
of cash, including the extensive “recycling” of cash to pay for
purchases. We are satisfied from the record in the instant cases
that any such purchases not reflected in our Findings of Fact
would be matched by gross receipts that were not deposited into
Kenmore’s Account, and so were not included in our Findings of
Fact as to Kenmore’s gross receipts. Petitioners have not
directed our attention to, and we have not found, any additional
costs of purchases that would have reduced the net of Kenmore’s
gross receipts minus its purchases.
Respondent need not prove that Kenmore did not have the
offsetting deductions that petitioners assert in conclusory
terms. Once the Commissioner has presented clear and convincing
evidence of unreported gross receipts, the taxpayer has the
burden of coming forward with evidence as to offsetting
deductions claimed by the taxpayer, even in criminal cases where
the Government must prove a deficiency beyond a reasonable doubt.
E.g., United States v. Campbell, 351 F.2d 336, 338-339 (2d Cir.
1965); Elwert v. United States, 231 F.2d 928, 933 (9th Cir.
1956); see also Reiff v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1169, 1175
(1981).14
14 This rule is independent of the general rule applicable
to civil cases in which the taxpayer has the burden of proving
entitlement to deductions before they may be allowed. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011