Ramon and Irma Ortiz - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          and large bank deposits.  Mills v. Commissioner, 399 F.2d 744,              
          749 (4th Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-67; DiLeo v.                     
          Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 867 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir.           
          1992).                                                                      
               The deficiency determination is presumed correct.  Welch v.            
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 111 (1933).  Petitioner has the burden             
          of proving that respondent's determination is incorrect.  Rule              
          142(a); Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1057, 1064 (1978);                
          Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, 64 T.C. 651, 657 (1975), affd.             
          566 F.2d (6th Cir. 1977).                                                   
               Here petitioners first argue that respondent's determination           
          should not be sustained because the revenue agent did not have              
          sufficient time to complete his audit, and he said that he only             
          estimated the deficiencies.  Petitioners misunderstood the                  
          revenue agent's testimony at trial in which he stated that he               
          requested an extension of time to complete his examination and              
          that the deficiencies determined were, in his best estimate,                
          correct.                                                                    
               In challenging respondent's income reconstruction, there is            
          evidence in this record that supports petitioners' claim that               
          some of the deposits were from nontaxable sources.  The evidence            
          primarily consists of Mr. Ortiz' testimony, bank account                    
          statements, canceled checks, and other documents.  On brief,                
          respondent stresses that Mr. Ortiz was not able to readily trace            
          nontaxable payments received to specific bank deposits.  We are             




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011