- 9 - kept the cash through this period of time despite attempts by credit card issuers to collect from him on outstanding debts. Our evaluation of petitioner’s testimony is founded upon “the ultimate task of a trier of the facts--the distillation of truth from falsehood which is the daily grist of judicial life.” Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972); see also Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). We do not find to be credible petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony concerning the credit card cash advances. We find it unlikely that petitioner was able to secure such large cash advances, that petitioner with the help of his father then hoarded these cash advances for several years, and that petitioner then began depositing this money in small amounts into bank accounts. We find that petitioner did not have a cash hoard prior to the years in issue, and that he instead was using proceeds from the drug sales to make the cash expenditures and cash bank deposits in question. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner received unreported income in the amounts reflected in the notice of deficiency, income which is includable in petitioner’s gross income and subject to Federal income taxation under sections 1 and 1401.4 4 Petitioner has cited various statutes and cases in support of his contention that the income at issue is not taxable. We need not address these arguments in detail. Respondent’s determinations are in accordance with the law, as discussed above, and the law cited by petitioner is not applicable to the case at hand.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011