Otis L. Pimpleton and Tabitha Pimpleton - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
         1981), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1979-3.  Indeed, even                     
         statistical surveys have been held to be an appropriate method of            
         computing tip income.  See, e.g., Ross v. Commissioner, supra;               
         cf. sec. 7491(b).                                                            
              Fourth, the Commissioner’s method of recomputing income                 
         carries with it a presumption of correctness, and the taxpayer               
         bears the burden of proving it wrong.7  INDOPCO, Inc. v.                     
         Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290                
         U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                                                        
              If petitioner maintained contemporaneous records of his tip             
         income for 2002, he did not offer such records at trial.  Rather,            
         petitioner challenges only respondent’s methodology in                       
         reconstructing the amount of his tip income.                                 
              Petitioner’s principal challenge focuses on the amount of               
         his net sales.  In this regard, the parties agree that sales                 
         should properly be net of sales tax, and the parties assume that             
         the figures furnished by the Las Vegas Hilton are so.  Petitioner            
         contends that sales should also be net of the $2 per person                  
         service charge that was levied for the benefit of the hotel and              


               7  Although sec. 7491(a) may serve to shift the burden of              
          proof to the Commissioner, that section has no application to the           
          present case in view of the fact that:  (1) Petitioner has not              
          asserted its applicability; (2) petitioner has failed to                    
          demonstrate that he maintained the requisite books and records,             
          see sec. 7491(a)(2); and (3) petitioner failed to introduce                 
          credible evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, see           
          sec. 7491(a)(1).                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011