- 14 -
sale was recorded at the time of purchase. Therefore, any
subsequent reimbursement received by petitioner for the discounts
had no effect on income.
Petitioner, however, failed to provide adequate
documentation to show that these procedures were consistently
followed. Petitioner did supply records to corroborate
petitioner’s assertions for 2 days’ worth of sales activity for a
single store. However, during the year at issue Nick’s Liquors
operated four locations with aggregate gross receipts from
cigarette sales totaling several million dollars. Given the
volume of cigarette transactions generated by the four Nick’s
Liquors stores, the records provided by petitioner are not
sufficient evidence to establish that coupons and buy-downs were
consistently and completely recorded in all four stores.7
Petitioner’s testimony that the coupon and buy-down point of sale
procedure was consistently followed, by itself, is not sufficient
to carry his burden. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner failed
to report coupon and buy-down income of $124,684 for 1997, as
determined by respondent.
II. Promotional Income
Petitioner reported $16,736 of promotional income for 1997.
Respondent determined that petitioner received $69,915 of
7 It is somewhat curious that petitioner was able to provide
only 2 days of tapes for a single store. That is certainly too
small a sample to provide insight into the universe we consider.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011