- 16 -
this would lead to an increased deficiency, respondent has the
burden of proof. Rule 142(a). As mentioned, petitioner does not
contend that this amount was deposited and not included in
respondent's bank deposit analysis. Petitioner argues in his
brief that "the cash was reported on his income tax returns."
Petitioner's testimony was as follows:
Q: Did you report these monies as income * * * on your
tax returns?
A: I always had a cash item--you know--a cash amount
that would be put in * * * because that was pretty
visible, and that was part of the record. On those
particular ones, though, I had discussed that with Mr.
Shors [the revenue agent who audited petitioners'
returns] and he said that he wasn't asking for those,
nor would that become part of--or be part of this
procedure and trial.
We are somewhat unsure as to the meaning of this testimony. The
Greenberg firm prepared the 1986 return. There are no documents
that indicate that petitioner included the cash in the income
figures that he gave the Greenberg firm to prepare that return.
More important, even if he did include cash on his reported gross
receipts, the fact is that his total gross income from the bank
deposits was $5,713 greater than the total upon which
respondent's calculation was made.
With regard to the part of the testimony referring to Mr.
Shors, during the audit examination Mr. Shors took the total
deposits from the monthly bank statements and not from the
deposit slips. Even if Mr. Shors made some comment during the
audit to the effect that he was not concerned with so-called
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