- 14 - met his minimal burden of establishing a source of income underlying his determination of deficiency. See Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, supra. Petitioners urge that we should find respondent’s determination arbitrary and erroneous because respondent lost some of the evidence upon which it was based. Petitioners’ only evidence in support of their argument is their own testimony. We do not find petitioners credible; their testimony was inconsistent and implausible, as discussed infra. We hold that respondent correctly determined unreported net capital gains of $2,341,878 for 1986. II. Other Unreported Income We next decide the correctness of the increased deficiency based upon the $2.8 million of unreported income asserted by respondent in an amended answer. Respondent bears the burden of proof on this issue. Rule 142(a). In support of his increase, respondent points the Court to Mr. Ford’s previously quoted allocution and his testimony before this Court, both of which were under oath and made while represented by counsel. During his allocution Mr. Ford acknowledged that he had: “failed to include income in excess of $2.8 million I had received from the sale of securities belonging to me which I had secreted in accounts in the name of my son and others”.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011