- 9 - accordingly, did not deal with Agent Harkins’ analysis of petitioner’s financial records to verify that the schedule provided by petitioner during the examination was correct. Finally, petitioner did not explain the differences between the two schedules. Accordingly, respondent’s determination was based on verified and uncontradicted specific items of income that were omitted from petitioner’s 1992 income, and respondent’s determination of understatement of gross receipts for 1992 is sustained. Respondent also determined that petitioner understated its gross receipts by $74,046 for the 1993 year. The statutory notice of deficiency contains a net reduction of $59,177 to petitioner’s claimed 1993 net operating loss, thereby reducing the amount of any carryover to the 1994 year from the $231,441 claimed to $172,264. The $59,177 net adjustment comprises 10 items decreasing and one item increasing the 1993 net operating loss. Our trial record and the notice of deficiency contain no details or explanations of the $74,046 proposed understatement of gross receipts for 1993, and the amount is apparently the result of a general bank deposits analysis by Agent Harkins. Unlike the specific adjustments for 1992, respondent’s adjustment for 1993 is based on generalized bank deposits. Petitioner addresses respondent’s determination on that item by reconciling the total bank deposits to the items on its return inPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011