- 10 -
Here, respondent has come forward with the indictment and
judgment from petitioner’s criminal trial sufficiently linking
petitioner to illegal income from sales of marijuana.
Additionally, respondent has introduced documentary evidence,
primarily checks payable to petitioner, in support of the
unreported construction income received from M.J. Lord. Thus, as
to the amounts in the notice of deficiency (other than those
adjustments conceded by respondent), petitioner bears the burden
of showing error in the determinations of income from both
marijuana distribution and construction operations. Petitioner
has not done so. The record contains only petitioner’s
uncorroborated assertions to the contrary, which in essence are a
collateral attack on his criminal conviction. We therefore
sustain respondent’s determination of $85,000 in unreported
income from marijuana sales for 1990 and for 1991 and $9,171 in
unreported construction income from M.J. Lord in 1991.
However, with respect to the increased deficiencies asserted
by respondent subsequent to issuance of the statutory notice,
respondent bears the burden of proof. Rule 142(a). The record
falls short of carrying this burden. The only support offered by
respondent for the $160,000 amount from marijuana sales is the
testimony of the special agent as to what was said by a single
witness, Hatcher, at petitioner’s criminal trial. The absence of
the criminal trial transcript deprives us of any ability to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011