Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 70




                                       - 70 -                                         
          receipts for 1995 is arbitrary.34  On the instant record, we                
          reject that contention.  Petitioners refused to provide respon-             
          dent with any information or documentation during respondent’s              
          examination of petitioners’ 1995 joint return.  Under such                  
          circumstances, respondent was authorized to reconstruct petition-           
          ers’ income by any reasonable means which clearly reflects                  
          income.  See, e.g., Zuhone v. Commissioner, 883 F.2d 1317, 1326             
          (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1988-142; Petzoldt v. Commis-             
          sioner, 92 T.C. 661, 686-687 (1989).  On the record presented, we           
          find respondent’s method of reconstructing petitioners’ 1995                
          Schedule C gross receipts and the results generated by that                 





               34In order to reconstruct petitioners’ 1995 Schedule C gross           
          receipts, respondent divided the total expenses reported in                 
          petitioners’ 1994 Schedule C (i.e., $1,871,671) by the gross                
          profit (total net gross receipts (i.e., total gross receipts                
          reduced by returns and allowances) minus cost of goods sold)                
          reported in that schedule (i.e., $2,624,759).  The resulting                
          quotient was 71.31 percent.  The revenue agent then divided the             
          total expenses claimed in petitioners’ 1995 Schedule C (i.e.,               
          $1,973,107) by that percentage.  The result ($2,766,943) was                
          determined to be the reconstructed Schedule C gross profit for              
          1995.  Respondent determined that the difference (i.e., $890,719)           
          between that reconstructed gross profit of $2,766,943 and the               
          gross profit reported in petitioners’ 1995 Schedule C (i.e.,                
          $1,876,224) constituted petitioners’ unreported 1995 Schedule C             
          gross receipts.  (In this connection, petitioners do not claim              
          any returns and allowances or cost of goods sold in excess of the           
          amounts of such items claimed in petitioners’ 1995 Schedule C.)             
          Pursuant to the foregoing method of reconstructing petitioners’             
          Schedule C gross receipts for 1995, respondent determined to                
          increase petitioners’ Schedule C gross receipts for that year by            
          $890,719.                                                                   





Page:  Previous  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011