- 8 -
281 F.2d 100, 108 (9th Cir. 1960) (“all that the Tax Court can do
is to 'make as close an approximation as it can, bearing heavily
if it chooses upon the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his own
making'”, quoting Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544
(2d Cir. 1930)), affg. T.C. Memo. 1958-94. Respondent's
reconstruction of income need only be reasonable in light of all
the surrounding circumstances, and bank deposits are generally
treated as prima facie evidence of taxable income. See, e.g.,
Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 658 (1990); Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Schroeder v. Commissioner,
40 T.C. 30, 33 (1963).
Generally, taxpayers bear the burden of proving that
determinations made by respondent are erroneous. See Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Respondent contends that for the years in issue the cash
deposits into the bank accounts owned by petitioner and his wife
(after accounting for wages, loans, interfund transfers, and
other nontaxable funds) constitute funds petitioner embezzled
from the OPP and must be included in petitioner and his wife's
gross income.
Petitioner argues that the cash deposits in question relate
to family lands seized in the 1940's by the Government of Iran
and, as an inheritance to petitioner, should be excluded from
income under section 102. Also, petitioner alleges that each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011