- 20 -
Petitioner claims that he did not file income tax returns for the
years in issue because he received no salary or wages and because
he earned no income.
In our consideration of the fraud addition to tax, we must
consider petitioner’s taxability on the specific items of income
and on the deposits into his bank accounts and petitioner’s
claimed losses and expenses in light of the placement of the
burden of proof on respondent by clear and convincing evidence.
For 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989, the specific items
that we have charged to petitioner as income are established by
clear and convincing evidence, and the large expenses and losses
that petitioner claims are not supported by any credible
evidence.
With regard to the income charged to petitioner under the
bank deposits method of proof, respondent has established likely
taxable sources of the bank deposits, and petitioner makes no
credible argument as to nontaxable sources of those deposits.
Accordingly, for fraud purposes, we treat all of the unexplained
bank deposits as additional income to petitioner.
In the schedule below and for purposes of analyzing the
imposition of the fraud addition to tax, we set forth our
calculations of petitioner’s net income for each year in issue,
reflecting all expenses and losses that are allowed by respondent
and that are allowed herein:
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011