- 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