Thomas G. Roots - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
          Petitioner produced an illegible copy of the $2,200 check at                
          trial.  Mr. Bogue testified at trial that he returned only                  
          $900 to $1,000 to petitioner in exchange for the automobile.                
          Petitioner testified that the car had a $7,000 value, while                 
          Mr. Bogue testified that the car had a $2,000 book value.  We are           
          not persuaded that petitioner has met his burden of proof.                  
          Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination as to the                
          $2,200 deposit in 1987.                                                     
               Lastly, petitioner alleges that a deposit of $4,348 should             
          not be included in his 1984 income because it is "from funds                
          previously acquired and retained by Petitioner".  There is no               
          evidence to substantiate that claim, and accordingly we find that           
          the $4,348 deposit is includable in his 1984 income.                        
               We thus hold that all the disputed deposits were taxable               
          income.3  Accordingly, petitioner must include all of the                   
          contested deposits in his income for the years in issue.                    
          B.  Addition to Tax for Fraud                                               



               3 In so holding, we note that petitioner also alleges that             
          he incurred a $15,523 casualty loss for 1984 because he forwarded           
          that amount to Lewco Securities, which claimed to be an agent of            
          Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb, Inc. (Lehman Brothers), but Lehman               
          Brothers never received the funds or established an account for             
          him.  In support of his claim, petitioner has introduced only his           
          uncorroborated testimony and evidence that his account balance              
          with Lewco Securities fell below the minimum margin maintenance             
          requirements.  Petitioner never identified the names or positions           
          of the individuals with whom he dealt at Lewco Securities.  We do           
          not allow him a deduction for a casualty loss.                              




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011