- 14 -
In considering both the deposits from purported loans and
the accommodation deposits, we are left with the decided
impression that petitioner is engaged in a shell game. We have
no confidence in petitioner's testimony. Nonetheless, we do
accept Mr. Tallis' testimony that the deposit of January 5, 1989,
in the amount of $30,000 was not income to petitioner. None of
the other alleged accommodation deposits were verified by another
party, nor is there a clear trail of a withdrawal of the funds.
With the exception of the $30,000 January 5, 1989, deposit, we
reject petitioner's argument concerning the accommodation
deposits.
Increased Income and Deficiency--1986
At the close of the evidence respondent orally moved to
amend the answer to conform to the evidence and to increase the
deficiency by the tax on $5,713 for 1986. Petitioner objects to
the amendment. We agree with respondent. See Rule 41(b)(1) and
(2). The evidence underlying respondent's motion was introduced
by petitioner on redirect examination for petitioner's own
reasons. Petitioner's testimony, however, is a double-edge
sword, a cut from which petitioner now seeks to avoid. In this
regard, petitioner does not dispute that the amount involved was
not included in respondent's bank deposit analysis, nor does he
disavow his testimony that he received cash from the items
deposited.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011