- 21 -
that “any inaccuracies in his tax returns were caused by
extraordinary stresses and distractions he experienced, not an
intent to evade taxes.” For the reasons detailed below, we
uphold respondent’s deficiency determinations, with some
modifications, and find that petitioner fraudulently intended to
evade the payment of his tax liabilities for 1990, 1991, and
1992.
The first question we address is whether there is a
deficiency. The Commissioner’s determination of tax liability is
presumptively correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
showing that the determination is erroneous.28 Zack v.
Commissioner, 692 F.2d 28 (6th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-
700; see DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 871 (1991), affd.
959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70 T.C.
1057, 1064 (1978).29
A. The Amount of the Deficiency
1. Unreported Income
Section 61(a) defines gross income as “all income from
whatever source derived”. Every person liable for any tax must
28“This presumption of accuracy does not change merely
because the case requires a subsidiary inquiry into the question
of fraud.” Zack v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 28, 29 (6th Cir.
1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-700.
29Petitioner disputes respondent’s calculations of how much
income he failed to report. He argues also that to the extent he
omitted income, he is entitled to decrease his taxable income by
the amount of unclaimed deductions and adjustments.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011