- 7 - the Commissioner may use an indirect method of proving income, such as the bank deposits method, in order to determine the taxpayer’s taxable income. Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, supra at 656. Under the bank deposits method, bank deposits are prima facie evidence of income. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Estate of Mason v. Commissioner, supra. Because petitioner failed to file tax returns and maintain adequate books and records, respondent used the bank deposits method to compute petitioner’s taxable income. Specifically, respondent examined petitioner’s deposit tickets, bank statements, transcripts from related bank accounts, and canceled checks. After excluding transfers of funds between accounts and deposits related to petitioner’s wife’s income and other non- Schedule-C items, respondent determined that petitioner received unreported Schedule C taxable income during all years at issue. Respondent’s determinations are presumed correct, and petitioner bears the burden of proof.7 Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner generally contests respondent’s determinations and asserts that he shared the bank accounts with his business associates. Although petitioner and his wife were listed as the sole account holders, petitioner contends that the bank accounts did 7Respondent’s examination in this case commenced before July 22, 1998, the effective date of sec. 7491. See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(c), 112 Stat. 727.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011