- 17 -
introduced no evidentiary foundation linking the taxpayer
to the unreported income. See Portillo v. Commissioner,
supra at 1134. In the second case, the Court found the
notice arbitrary and excessive because the Commissioner’s
own evidence convinced the Court that the Commissioner’s
determination was arbitrary. See Jackson v. Commissioner,
supra at 403-404.
This is not such a case. In this case, the testimony
of the principal of BMAP, Mr. Gartland, proves that BMAP
paid the subject amounts to petitioner, and petitioners
have acknowledged in their posttrial brief that Mr. Vetrano
engaged in the automobile parts business and received the
payments from BMAP. Thus, in this case, there is ample
evidence linking the subject payments to petitioners.
In their first assertion, petitioners seem to be
arguing that Mr. Vetrano functioned as a conduit through
which his employer, BMAP, acquired automobile parts from
various junk dealers during the years in issue, with the
result that the payments he received from BMAP are not
taxable income to him. Petitioners do not clearly explain
the legal basis for this position, and they cite no cases
in support thereof.
We would agree that a taxpayer need not treat as
income moneys which he did not receive under a claim of
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011