Hubert and Flora M. Swaringer - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
               Utilities           2,034     -0-       2,034                          
               Robes, etc.         3,000     500       2,500                          
               Dry Cleaning        1,900     500     1,400                            
               Tithes              2,860     -0-        12,860                        
               1 In the notice of deficiency respondent allowed petitioners           
          an additional $5,547 as charitable contributions on Schedule A,             
          Itemized Deductions, which includes the amount petitioners                  
          claimed on Schedule C as tithes.                                            
                                     Discussion                                       
          A. Unreported Income                                                        
               Initially, we note that it appears that the bank deposits              
          analysis should be modified to reflect the dividend income ($629)           
          that petitioners concede was not reported on their return.  We              
          also accept petitioner’s testimony that the analysis should be              
          modified to reflect the money borrowed ($1,000) from Robin                  
          Oliver.                                                                     
               With respect to the balance of the unexplained bank                    
          deposits, petitioners argue that these funds are nontaxable gifts           
          from various unspecified members of the church.  Section 102(a)             
          provides that “Gross income does not include the value of                   
          property acquired by gift”.  Neither the Code nor the regulations           
          define a gift for the purposes of section 102.  In Commissioner             
          v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 285-286 (1960), the Supreme Court              
          summarized the case law regarding whether amounts received were             
          gifts within the meaning of section 102 as follows:                         
               The mere absence of a legal or moral obligation to make such           
               a payment does not establish that it is a gift.  And,                  
               importantly, if the payment proceeds primarily from “the               
               constraining force of any moral or legal duty”, or from “the           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011