- 14 - respondent had knowledge. Petitioners imply that regardless of whether or not petitioners' claims were substantiated, respondent should have simply adjusted his bank deposits analysis by petitioners' claim that the deposits were from loans, inheritances, gifts, and previously taxed corporate income. We do not agree. Respondent's position was premised primarily on the bank deposits method and petitioners' failure to substantiate items that petitioners claimed as nontaxable deposits. It is well established that unexplained bank deposits are presumptively from taxable sources, see, e.g., Mallette Bros. Constr. Co. v. United States, 695 F.2d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 1983); Price v. United States, supra at 677; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 868 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992), and that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the Commissioner's determination of income based on the bank deposits method is erroneous. Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 645 (1994); DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 868; see Calhoun v. United States, 591 F.2d 1243, 1245 (9th Cir. 1978) (taxpayer's burden to prove that unexplained bank deposits came from a nontaxable source). Thus, respondent was entitled to rely upon his bank deposits analysis of petitioners' income in the absence of substantiation regarding nontaxable sources of income. We do not regard the information given to respondent's agents prior to the issuance ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011