Rogelio R. Balot and Zenaida V. Balot - Page 25




                                       - 25 -                                         
          respondent’s brief introduces an uncertainty as to the amount of            
          Rogelio’s 1992 hourly compensation.  See supra note 3.                      
          2. The CIPAA Casino--Tip Income                                             
               The record is clear that each petitioner also received each            
          year an appropriate portion of the tips that the casino’s patrons           
          left in 1991 and 1992.10  Petitioners did not report any tip                
          income on their 1991 tax return.  Petitioners reported 1992 tip             
          income of $750 for Rogelio and $480 for Zenaida.  Apart from                
          petitioners’ thus-reported 1992 tip income, we do not find                  
          anything in the record that would enable us to quantify                     
          petitioners’ tip income for 1991 or 1992.                                   
               Petitioners urge, in both opening brief and answering brief,           
          that our opinion in Executive Network Club, Inc. v. Commissioner,           
          T.C. Memo. 1995-21, “highlights the extent to which the IRS’ case           


               10On opening brief, respondent asserts that, in addition to            
          the tips that the CIPAA Casino gathered from patrons and                    
          distributed to the dealers, etc., “Moreover, in each year,                  
          petitioners received cash tips directly from patrons. (Tr. pp.              
          191-193).”  We have found, supra, that “The record does not show            
          that either petitioner received any such direct tips.”  The                 
          transcript pages that respondent cites refer to the testimony of            
          another person who worked for the CIPAA Casino during at least              
          part of the period in issue in the instant case.  That person               
          testified that she had received such direct tips.  Respondent’s             
          counsel asked:  “Okay.  Did other employees earn tips in this               
          manner as well?”  The witness replied:  “Probably, I don’t know.”           
          Later, petitioners’ counsel asked that witness:  “Did you ever              
          see someone on the see [side ?] pay Mr. Balot or Mrs. Balot?”               
          The witness replied:  “I don’t recall, sir, because it was done             
          secretly.”  Thus the only evidence to which respondent directs              
          our attention, or that our examination has turned up, is a                  
          disclaimer of knowledge.  Respondent’s assertion on this point is           
          unfounded on the record in the instant case.                                





Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011