- 6 -
compensation to Mr. Sasser. Cf. Portillo v. Commissioner, 932
F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C.
Memo. 1990-68. We disagree.
We did not find Mr. Roach to be a credible witness. See
Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972); Kropp v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-148. Moreover, his records were
not contemporaneous and were patently unreliable. Indeed, in
responding to a question raised at trial by the Court regarding
the methodology employed in keeping his records, Mr. Roach
testified: “I don’t know how all them numbers come up out there.”
Later Mr. Roach apologized for the state of his records, saying:
“And I’m sorry if it ain’t computer-digited and all that.”
Finally, apart from our evaluation of his demeanor at trial, we
note that Mr. Roach had a financial interest in the Form 1099-
MISC that made him less than a disinterested witness.
Respondent also relies on a bank deposits analysis to
support his deficiency determination. See Price v. United
States, 335 F.2d 671, 677 (5th Cir. 1964); Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Under one variation of the
analysis, respondent contends that Mr. Sasser had $11,829 of
unreported income in 1996:
Deposits to personal account $29,096
Less: Mrs. Sasser’s net wages -17,267
Unreported income 11,829
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011