- 125 -
Respondent determined that the deposit of a $59,000
cashier’s check into petitioner’s Tucker bank account on March
12, 1985, was income to petitioner. Bank deposits are prima
facie evidence of income. United States v. Price, 335 F.2d at
677; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 868. Where respondent
bears the burden of proof, he must show a likely taxable source
for the deposits. Armes v. Commissioner, 448 F.2d 972, 975 (5th
Cir. 1971), affg. in part, revg. in part, and remanding T.C.
Memo. 1969-181. Alternatively, where the taxpayer alleges a
nontaxable source, the Commissioner may satisfy his burden by
disproving the nontaxable source so alleged. United States v.
Massei, 355 U.S. 595 (1958); Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at
661. Respondent claims that the Tucker bank account is an
account to which petitioner deposited, generally, taxable income
from his business. Also, respondent relies upon petitioner’s
“business of buying and selling real estate and real estate
development” as the likely source of the $59,000 deposit.
The record shows that there were a number of deposits into
petitioner’s Tucker bank account from his real estate business
and that those deposits represented taxable income. Indeed, the
spreadsheets provided to Mr. Kelly, which list deposits to and
expenditures from the Tucker bank account, show items such as
commissions and interest received in petitioner’s real estate
81(...continued)
Basis ($1,844).
Page: Previous 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011