- 11 -
revg. in part T.C. Memo. 1964-302; Halle v. Commissioner, 175
F.2d 500, 503 (2d Cir. 1949), affg. 7 T.C. 245 (1946). Thus,
petitioners, not respondent, bear the burden of proving that
respondent's determination of underreported income, computed
using the bank deposits method of reconstructing income, is
incorrect. Parks v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 654, 658 (1990);
Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1057, 1064 (1978).
Petitioner gave respondent incomplete information regarding
his return preparation income and failed to deposit all the fees
he received. Petitioner also failed to call Mr. Sundstrom, a
witness he claimed could corroborate that certain deposits were
loan proceeds. Given the importance of Mr. Sundstrom in
substantiating this purported loan, the Court assumes from his
absence that his testimony would not have corroborated
petitioner's testimony. Frierdich v. Commissioner, 925 F.2d 180,
185 (7th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-393; see also Wichita
Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946)
(holding that if a party having the burden of proof fails to call
a witness who is available to testify, and that witness could
corroborate the taxpayer's testimony, the taxpayer's failure to
do so creates a presumption that the witness's testimony would
have been unfavorable), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
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