- 16 -
Consistent with this testimony, petitioners’ arguments on
brief seem premised on an assumption that a $125,000 cash hoard
remained in Jack’s safe throughout the years in issue. If the
premise is valid, then the existence of a cash hoard is
immaterial: Respondent’s omission of such a cash hoard from
petitioners’ opening and closing net worth for each year in issue
would have no effect on the amount of unreported income
determined for each year and hence would not disturb the
presumption of the validity of respondent’s determination. See
Harp v. Commissioner, 263 F.2d 139, 142 (6th Cir. 1959), revg. on
other grounds T.C. Memo. 1957-105.
Petitioners have stipulated, however, that as of the end of
6(...continued)
or December of ‘92-–excuse me-–he [Jack] had
$125,000 in cash that belonged to you in his safe.
A. Correct.
Q. Would he have had $125,000 in December of ‘94
-–or, excuse me-–December of ‘93?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Could he have?
A. Probably.
Q. What about December of ‘94?
A. Probably he could have.
Q. December of ‘95?
A. He still could up to today. I don’t know.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011