Gregory A. Maslow and Marina Maslow - Page 5

                                         -5-                                          
          $25,1123 ($82,072 - $45,332 - $11,628) of unidentified deposits.            
               The use of bank deposits to reconstruct income is well                 
          established.  DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 867 (1991), affd.         
          959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 658         
          (1990); Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1057, 1064 (1978); Estate         
          of Mason v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 651, 656 (1975), affd. 566 F.2d           
          2 (6th Cir. 1977).  "The bank deposits method assumes that all              
          money deposited in a taxpayer's bank account during a given period          
          constitutes taxable income."  DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 868.          
          But the making of a bank deposit per se does not mean that the              
          amount so deposited is income.  Goe v. Commissioner, 198 F.2d 851,          
          852 (3d Cir. 1952); Vuitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-95.             
          However, where the Commissioner has determined that the deposits            
          constitute income, the taxpayer has the burden of showing the               
          Commissioner's determination was incorrect.  See United States v.           
          Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958); Parks v. Commissioner, supra at 661.           
               In explaining the source of the unidentified deposits,                 
          petitioner testified that he borrowed moneys in 1992 from various           
          finance companies--Chrysler First Co., Commercial Credit Corp., and         
          Rose Shanis Co. Petitioner also testified that in 1992 he                   
          periodically received money from his father-in-law (Roman                   
          Shumatsky) totaling approximately $10,000 as well as from Roland            

               3    The differing amounts exist due to the inconsistency              
          between the amount of total bank deposits stated in the notice of           
          deficiency ($80,096 or $81,029) and respondent's brief ($82,072).           
          See supra note 1.                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011