- 22 -
payments from the CIPAA Casino, calculated at the appropriate
hourly rate.
Petitioners did not report any of this income on the joint
tax returns that they filed for 1991 and 1992. Petitioners do
not claim for either year that this unreported income is properly
offset by any deductions, etc., in addition to what is shown on
their tax returns.8
Accordingly, petitioners’ failures to report this hourly
compensation on their 1991 and 1992 joint tax returns result in
an underpayment of tax required to be shown on their 1991 tax
return and an underpayment of tax required to be shown on their
1992 tax return. We have so found.
Petitioners agree that both of them worked for the CIPAA
Casino during each of the years before the Court. They also
agree, or at least do not dispute, that the CIPAA Casino paid to
each of them weekly $10 or $12 per hour for each hour petitioners
8Respondent need not prove that petitioners did not have
offsetting deductions. Once the Commissioner has presented clear
and convincing evidence of unreported gross receipts, the
taxpayer has the burden of coming forward with evidence as to
offsetting deductions claimed by the taxpayer, even in criminal
cases where the Government must prove a deficiency beyond a
reasonable doubt. See, e.g., United States v. Hiett, 581 F.2d
1199, 1202 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Campbell, 351 F.2d
336, 338-339 (2d Cir. 1965); Elwert v. United States, 231 F.2d
928, 933 (9th Cir. 1956); see also DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C.
858, 872 (1991); Reiff v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1169, 1175
(1981). This rule is independent of the general rule applicable
to civil cases, in which the taxpayer has the burden of proving
entitlement to deductions before they may be allowed. See Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011