- 34 -
have occurred two years after petitioner brought this
proceeding in the Tax Court.
In any event, respondent’s position in this case
is not dependent on the accuracy of the Form 1099
issued by Weavewood. * * * Rather than relying on the
Weavewood 1099 in preparing for trial, respondent has
reconstructed the amount of petitioner’s
misappropriations from Weavewood and proved the spe-
cific items of income includible in the reconstruction.
* * *
Most of the evidence on this issue has been estab-
lished by respondent through the admissions and stipu-
lation process * * * .
We reject petitioner’s argument that we do not have juris-
diction over the determination in the notice referred to as
“EMBEZZELMENT [sic] FORM 1099". Moreover, even if the record had
established, which it does not, that a proceeding before a
Hennepin County District Court Judge addressed and ruled on that
determination, we would not be bound by any such ruling.
Weavewood’s February 1996 Checks
With respect to petitioner’s use of Weavewood’s February
1996 checks that were payable to Ms. Thompson and drawn on
Weavewood’s checking account, the record establishes that peti-
tioner received the proceeds of those checks. On the record
before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden
of showing that he used those proceeds for or on behalf of
Weavewood. On that record, we further find that petitioner has
failed to carry his burden of showing that he does not have
unreported income of $26,000 for 1996 from his use of Weavewood’s
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011