- 127 -
United States, 348 U.S. 121 (1954). Second, we find that
respondent has nevertheless negated the Washington International
check as a nontaxable source of the deposit. Petitioner, in this
case, relies upon Mr. Kelly’s testimony that Washington
International, generally, “loaned money secured by real estate”
and that petitioner’s account was “basically a loan account”.
However, this position is inconsistent with petitioner’s
testimony at trial that the Washington International trust
account was used as a vehicle for deferring income from real
estate sales. We cannot agree, on the basis of the record before
us, that the Washington International trust account was a loan
account or that the $70,000 check represents a loan. There is
evidence that this check did not represent a nontaxable source,
and we do not draw any adverse conclusion from respondent’s
failure to classify it as taxable income in his examination. We
hold that respondent has shown by clear and convincing evidence
that the $59,000 deposit represents income to petitioner.
Respondent has proven by clear and convincing evidence the
following items of income for 1985:
Item Amount
Income conceded or stipulated $270,446
Disputed income conceded on brief 100,511
Gain from sale of installment obligation 30,925
One-half gain from sale of High Plains Property 9,850
Gain from foreclosure of Citrus County Prop. 85,156
Unidentified deposit--Mar. 12, 1985 59,000
Total 555,888
Respondent allowed the following deductions for 1985:
Page: Previous 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011