- 20 -
b. The Careys’ Legal Arguments
(1) Minimal Evidentiary Foundation
The Careys argue that, since respondent has attributed to
Michael gross income not reported by him, respondent must provide
a minimal evidentiary foundation, sufficient to connect Michael
to some income-producing activity, before respondent may enjoy
the presumption of correctness that results from the burden of
proof being borne by the Careys. See Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672
(1977), to which we defer in accordance with the doctrine of
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985
(10th Cir. 1971). As stated supra section III.A.1.a., the Careys
concede respondent’s adjustments to the trust’s gross income.
Michael signed the trust 1995 return as “Manager”, which
establishes that he had some control over trust operations. He
transferred $8,000 from one of his proprietorship’s bank accounts
to the trust’s bank account and had authority to, and did, write
checks on the trust’s bank account. He used equipment leased to
the trust in at least one of his proprietorships. The record
does contain a minimal evidentiary foundation connecting Michael
with the income-producing activity that is the source of the
unreported income (the trust’s operations) that respondent would
attribute to Michael.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011