- 16 - income from her ownership of the trucks and their use by other persons. We believe petitioner's testimony--in response to the questions she was asked at trial--literally to be true, but it does not cover all possible sources of income from the use of her truck or trucks during the taxable year. Petitioner did not explain how two Mack trucks were used in her trucking business during a portion of 1993. Petitioner's testimony does not exclude the possibility that she drove one truck herself to provide transportation services for Cappy's and allowed someone else either to use her truck when she was not driving it,12 or to use the other truck to provide transportation services for others, giving rise to rent income rather than earned income.13 In this way, petitioner's testimony that she had no other clients and that she reported all her earnings would literally be true, and still fail to rebut the presumption of correctness of respondent's determination that petitioner had unreported income from another source whose likely existence is disclosed by the record. 12 We note that, for the immediately preceding year, petitioner reported gross receipts of $68,145 from her trucking business, approximately $24,000 more than she reported for the taxable year in issue. 13 Petitioner's failure to report the sale of the second Mack truck raises from another angle the question of whether her failure to report income was connected to income generated by other use or rental of the truck that was sold.Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011