- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011