Christopher Richardson - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          declarations of the validity of these documents were made by                
          people familiar with them.                                                  
               We conclude that section 6201(d) does not apply in this                
          case.                                                                       
                    b.   Determination in Unreported Income Cases                     
               The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (to which an           
          appeal of this case would lie) has held that in order for the               
          presumption of correctness to attach to the notice of deficiency            
          in unreported income cases, the Commissioner must establish “some           
          evidentiary foundation linking the taxpayer” to the                         
          income-producing activity, Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d           
          358, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977), or some             
          substantive evidence “demonstrating that the taxpayer received              
          unreported income”, Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270            
          (9th Cir. 1982); see also Rapp v. Commissioner, 774 F.2d 932, 935           
          (9th Cir. 1985).  Once there is evidence of actual receipt of               
          funds by the taxpayer, the taxpayer has the burden of proving               
          that all or part of those funds is not taxable.  Tokarski v.                
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 76-77 (1986).                                     
               There is ample evidence linking petitioner to                          
          income-producing activities.  He received interest and dividends            
          from the trust through KeyBank, Social Security benefits from the           
          Social Security Administration, and nonemployee compensation from           
          Eniva Corp. during the years in issue.  At trial, respondent                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011