Yu-Yang Wu - Page 13




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011