- 8 - On brief, petitioner contends that she is liable for income tax on $4,333 (one-third of $13,000) from the photo shop in 1994 because she worked for and had earnings from the photo shop for only 4 months in 1994. We disagree. Petitioner testified that she had problems with pregnancies in 1991 and 1992, and that she worked only the first 6 months of 1994 because she was pregnant with twins. Petitioner later testified that she worked throughout 1994 but only 6 months in 1995. Petitioner made small deposits throughout 1994 as she had throughout 1993. These small deposits totaled $12,363 in 1993 and $12,677 in 1994. This suggests that she worked throughout 1993 and 1994. We conclude that petitioner earned $13,000 working for the photo shop in 1993 and in 1994, and that she is liable for income tax on those amounts. B. Whether Petitioner Failed To Report Income of $25,500 for 1993 and $5,486 for 1994 We must decide whether, as respondent contends, petitioner failed to report income (in addition to her $13,000 salary from the photo shop) of $25,5003 for 1993 and $5,486 for 1994. Respondent reconstructed petitioner's income using a modified bank deposits method in which respondent counted deposits of 3 Petitioner contends that she did not receive a lump-sum payment of $25,500. Respondent does not contend that petitioner received $25,500 in a lump sum. Rather, respondent contends that petitioner received and deposited that amount in her bank accounts throughout 1993, used it for personal expenses, and did not report it on her income tax return.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011