- 383 -
register, respondent asserts, Kanter offered no other
documentation showing the nontaxable nature of the $1,303,207 of
the deposits at issue. Respondent notes that a substantial
portion of the disputed deposits was attributable to funds Kanter
received from the Administration Co. accounts which were
controlled by him.
We agree with respondent. Unlike Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), respondent here
provided direct evidence linking Kanter to an income producing
activity. This was not a naked determination. Kanter engaged in
many activities and received significant remunerations. Unlike
Weimerskirch, there are uncontradicted deposits to Kanter's bank
account. It was Kanter's burden to prove that the deposits did
not constitute income. It was he who had to show the true nature
of the deposits. He failed to do so.
Moreover, we view Kanter's conduct on this issue in the
context of all of his business and financial dealings, as
portrayed in these cases. The accounting for the transactions
was done by the same accounting entity (Administration Co.) that
provided services for the controlled Kanter entities.
Respondent's bank deposits determination clearly comports
with the opinion in United States v. Esser, 520 F.2d 213, 217
(7th Cir. 1975). In Esser, the Court of Appeals stated that the
Government has the burden of proving that the taxpayer was (1)
Page: Previous 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011