Solomon Mayer - Page 4




                                                - 4 -                                                  
                  On audit, respondent prepared and filed Federal income tax                           
            returns for petitioner for 1991, 1993, and 1994.                                           
                  Among other adjustments, for 1991 respondent charged                                 
            petitioner with the $22,192 in interest income on the Bank Leumi                           
            CD.  For 1994, respondent charged petitioner with the $162,000 in                          
            gambling winnings from Caesar’s Palace and the $101,500 in                                 
            lottery winnings.  Due to lack of substantiation, respondent                               
            allowed petitioner no gambling costs.  Respondent also did not                             
            allow petitioner an exemption for his wife for any of the years                            
            in dispute.                                                                                
                  In early 1995, in conjunction with a criminal investigation                          
            of petitioner, the attorney general of New York was granted a                              
            subpoena and seized many of petitioner’s business records.  The                            
            indictment against petitioner was later dismissed.  In 1998, the                           
            attorney general of New York returned to petitioner some of his                            
            business records.                                                                          

                                               OPINION                                                 
                  For the years in issue, respondent’s adjustments ordinarily                          
            carry with them a presumption of correctness.  See Rule 142(a);                            
            Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).  However, with regard to                          
            the $22,192 in interest income relating to the certificate of                              
            deposit, petitioner contends that under section 6201(d) the                                
            burden should be on respondent to prove that the interest income                           
            should be charged to petitioner.                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011