Yu-Yang Wu - Page 14




                                       - 14 -                                         
          fact been reported, or (3) that the unreported income identified            
          by respondent was somehow tax exempt.11                                     
               Agent Oertel obtained additional information of unreported             
          income for 1988 and 1989 after the notice of deficiency was                 
          mailed.  With respect to 1988 and 1989, respondent established              
          that petitioner had unreported income of $96,531.82 and                     
          $56,410.96, respectively, but had only determined in the notice             
          of deficiency unreported income of $93,374 and $52,543,                     
          respectively.  Respondent does not seek to increase the amount              

               11Instead of addressing the unreported income issues                   
          identified by respondent, petitioner attempted (unsuccessfully)             
          to elicit testimony from the computer equipment purchasers that             
          the purchased equipment may have belonged to a Mr. Hu, rather               
          than to petitioner or PAC.  According to the testimony, Mr. Hu              
          was a former employee of PAC who spoke little English and                   
          assisted petitioner in assembling and repairing computers.  The             
          witnesses all testified that they bought the equipment from PAC’s           
          store, received a PAC receipt, and dealt only with petitioner.              
          Petitioner offered no evidence that Mr. Hu owned the equipment,             
          and he failed to explain how Mr. Hu’s alleged ownership of the              
          equipment would be relevant; after all, the purchase price ended            
          up in petitioner’s bank account.                                            
               Petitioner also attempted to introduce into evidence an                
          affidavit allegedly signed by Mr. Hu, in which Mr. Hu allegedly             
          took responsibility for the deposit of PAC’s money into                     
          petitioner’s bank account.  We sustained respondent’s objection             
          to the admission of the affidavit into evidence as hearsay.  We             
          also fail to see how the affidavit would be relevant.  Even if              
          Mr. Hu made the deposits to petitioner’s bank account, the                  
          testimony of the witnesses left no doubt that petitioner was in             
          charge, that petitioner orchestrated the scheme to avoid                    
          detection of his unreported income--by requesting cash payments,            
          by requesting that checks be made out in his name or with the               
          payee left blank so that he could insert his name, and by falsely           
          causing indications on the check to reflect loans rather than               
          computer sales--and was fully aware of both the deposits and his            
          failure to report the income.                                               





Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011