- 10 -
Also, what is highly irregular is that petitioners continued
the unsafe practice of carrying large sums of cash on the subway
week after week, for more than a 6-month period even though
petitioners claim that they did not use more than 5 percent of
the cash on any given weekend.
On the other hand, we are not convinced that petitioners
never deposited any portion of the $12,680 in cashed checks to
their account. Respondent bears the burden of proving the $2,970
increase in the amount of the unexplained deposits. See Rule
142(a). In that regard, respondent must prove that petitioners
did not deposit any portion of the cashed checks to their
account. We do not think that respondent proved that matter. It
is possible that petitioners deposited a portion of Mrs.
Margolis' cashed checks to their account. We find, however, that
such deposits would have been minimal and not close to 95 to 100
percent of the checks cashed. Therefore, using our best
judgment, we conclude that petitioners deposited 20 percent--or
$2,536--of Mrs. Margolis' $12,680 cashed checks to their account.
Cf. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930); Buske v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-29 (utilizing Cohan to determine
amount of unreported income); Kale v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1996-197 (utilizing Cohan to determine the amount of unreported
income but bearing heavily against the party--the Commissioner--
upon whom the burden of proof rested); Alanis v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1995-263 (holding that in cases of unreported income,
it may be appropriate for the Court to make estimates of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011