- 13 - Summary and Conclusions Petitioner blames his present situation on the U.S. Government, the Justos, his former wife, his former landlord, and unidentified others. We are satisfied that petitioner’s predicament is of his own making. Respondent has, by the receipt books in evidence and petitioner’s testimony, presented substantive evidence that petitioner received unreported income. See Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 935 (9th Cir. 1985); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 687-690 (1989); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74 (1986). Petitioner has shown no error in respondent’s corrected schedules of income set forth in respondent’s opening brief. Petitioner has not identified any deductions to which he is entitled beyond those conceded by respondent based on the records in evidence. Petitioner’s burden with respect to deductions is well established. See, e.g., Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1972-133. As explained above, we do not believe petitioner’s claims that respondent is responsible for his inability to substantiate deductions. Even if the records had been lost or destroyed while in respondent’s hands, however, petitioner would not be relieved of his burden with respect to deductions. See Foster v. Commissioner, 756 F.2d 1430, 1439 (9th Cir. 1985) (taxpayers’ “self-certification of their record- keeping system is not a substitute for proof of theirPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011