- 13 -
and $67,255.7610 in 1990. Agent Oertel’s testimony and analysis
leave no doubt that petitioner omitted from income the full
amounts identified as taxable to him by respondent for the years
in issue, as adjusted by respondent’s concession for 1990, as
described below.
Once the Commissioner makes a prima facie case of unreported
income using the bank deposits and specific identification
methods, and has made a determination in the notice of
deficiency, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the
deposits identified by the Commissioner as unreported income do
not in fact represent unreported income. See DiLeo v.
Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 869 (1991) (“petitioners, not the
Government, bear the burden of proving that respondent's
determination of underreported income, computed using the bank
deposits method of reconstructing income, is incorrect”), affd.
959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992).
At no time during the trial did petitioner attempt to
introduce any evidence to show: (1) That the unreported income
identified by respondent had in fact never been received by him,
(2) that the unreported income identified by respondent had in
10This consists of $43,055.89 identified using the deposit
method from responses to Agent Bricker’s mailing, $7,782
identified using the deposit method from indicia on the checks,
and $16,417.87 identified from the specific evidence provided by
PAC customers in response to Agent Bricker’s mailing.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011