Joseph D. and Mi Jung Park, et al. - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          petitioners’ funds.  Respondent believed, however, that the funds           
          came from a taxable source.                                                 
               Respondent reconstructed petitioners’ incomes using the cash           
          expenditures method and determined unreported income relating to            
          the years in issue of $7,502,253 for John Park, $830,321 for                
          Joseph and Mi Jung Park, and $1,310,895 for David and Deborah               
          Park.  Respondent also determined that John Park had $10,155 of             
          unreported income from concert promotion activities, and that all           
          petitioners were liable for section 6651(a) additions to tax for            
          failure to timely file and section 6662(a) accuracy-related                 
          penalties.                                                                  
                                       OPINION                                        
               Gross income includes all income from whatever source                  
          derived.  Sec. 61.  Respondent’s determination is generally                 
          presumed correct, and petitioners have the burden of proof.3                
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                               
               Petitioners contend that respondent’s determinations                   
          relating to unreported income are arbitrary and not entitled to a           
          presumption of correctness.  We disagree.  Connecting petitioners           
          to the funds that form the basis of the deficiency is sufficient            
          to give petitioners the burden of proving the determination                 
          erroneous.  Schad v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 609, 620 (1986), affd.           


               3  Sec. 7491 is not applicable to this case.                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011