- 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