- 7 - assumed to be taxable income, DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 868 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). Respondent used the specific items method to reconstruct petitioner's income for 1990. This method requires proof of specific items of income that were omitted from the taxpayer's return. United States v. Merrick, 464 F.2d 1087, 1092 (10th Cir. 1972). Petitioner acknowledges that he received, but did not report, monthly payments of $1,000 which petitioner used to lease a Cadillac. He also acknowledges that he received finder's fees of varying amounts but has not offered any explanation for his failure to report these funds. Petitioner contends that the remaining unreported funds are, pursuant to the open transaction doctrine, a return of principal. The open transaction doctrine, which applies in rare and extraordinary circumstances, see McShain v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 998, 1004 (1979), permits an investor to recover capital prior to recognizing gain. The Supreme Court in Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404, 413 (1931), established that this doctrine applies to deferred payment transactions where the realization of income is uncertain or contingent. The doctrine has also been applied to the purchase of notes at a discount where, at the time of acquisition, the investor was not reasonably certain that he would recover his cost and a major portion of the discount. Underhill v. Commissioner, 45 T.C. 489, 495 (1966).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011