Bonito Ruiz Molinar - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          reconstruct petitioner's income.  By applying the source and                
          application of funds method, respondent's agent concluded that              
          petitioner had income of $55,100 in 1988, $114,385 in 1989, and             
          $23,966 (as adjusted for respondent's concession) in 1990.                  
               Respondent's determination is presumed to be correct, and              
          petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise.  Rule 142(a);             
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Petitioner did not           
          do so.  He did not contact the Court to explain why he did not              
          appear for trial.  In his petition, petitioner contended that               
          respondent's method of reconstructing income was incorrect                  
          because he had a cash hoard from Mexico before 1988.  However,              
          there is no evidence that he had a cash hoard.                              
               We sustain respondent’s determinations as to the                       
          deficiencies for 1988, 1989, and 1990 (except as conceded by                
          respondent for 1990).                                                       
          B.   Fraud                                                                  
               Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for the                
          addition to tax for fraud under section 6653(b) for 1988 and the            
          fraud penalty under section 6663 for 1989 and 1990.  A taxpayer             
          is liable for an addition to tax or penalty for fraud equal to 75           
          percent of the part of the underpayment that is due to fraud.               
          Secs. 6653(b), 6663(a).  If the Commissioner shows that any part            
          of an underpayment is due to fraud, the entire underpayment is              
          treated as due to fraud unless the taxpayer proves that part of             
          the underpayment is not due to fraud.  Secs. 6653(b)(2), 6663(b).           




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011