T.C. Memo. 1997-450
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT A. FISHER, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 15319-96. Filed October 1, 1997.
Robert A. Fisher, pro se.
John R. Mikalchus, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
RUWE, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner's Federal income taxes and additions to tax as
follows:
- 2 -
Additions to tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a)
1987 $46,761 $11,690 $2,525
1988 52,610 13,071 3,340
1989 54,367 13,592 3,678
1990 31,418 7,801 2,054
1991 17,883 4,471 1,023
1992 43,839 10,957 1,909
After concessions, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether
bank deposits totaling $574,0941 constitute income to petitioner,
and (2) whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax
pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a).2
1
Respondent has conceded the following reductions to
petitioner's self-employment income as determined in the notice
of deficiency:
Per Notice of Corrected
Year Deficiency Reduction Amount
1987 $116,177 ($300) $115,877
1988 158,626 (29,099) 129,527
1989 153,169 (14,414) 138,755
1990 88,044 (20,739) 67,305
1991 49,773 (6,781) 42,992
1992 101,022 (21,384) 79,638
Total $666,811 ($92,717) $574,094
Respondent also conceded that petitioner's capital gains, as
determined in the notice of deficiency for 1990, should be
reduced by $765.
2
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable years in
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts is incorporated herein by this
reference. Petitioner resided in Silver Spring, Maryland, at the
time he filed his petition.
Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for the
taxable years 1987 through 1992. When respondent's revenue agent
first contacted petitioner, petitioner refused the revenue
agent's request to file the appropriate tax returns and refused
to provide any of his books and records or copies of bank
statements. The revenue agent obtained information reporting
documents (IRP) which had been filed with the Internal Revenue
Service and which reported miscellaneous income paid to
petitioner by third parties. Included in the IRP data were Forms
1099 which reported amounts petitioner received from the sale of
securities. The revenue agent included the proceeds of each
security sale reported on the IRP data in petitioner's income.
Petitioner never provided information to respondent's revenue
agent regarding the cost basis of the sold securities. However,
to the extent respondent's revenue agent was able to obtain
information regarding petitioner's cost basis, gain from the sale
of the securities was reduced by the verifiable cost basis.
Using the IRP information, the revenue agent identified
several bank accounts that were in petitioner's name or in the
- 4 -
joint names of petitioner and his wife. The revenue agent served
a summons upon each of the banks to produce statements showing
deposit and withdrawal activity for each of petitioner's
accounts. On September 1, 1993, petitioner filed a petition to
quash respondent's summons of his bank records. The petition to
quash alleged that respondent committed fraud and
misrepresentation in obtaining the summons because the summons
itself was not issued by the Secretary. On February 4, 1994, the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the
petition to quash was meritless and ordered summary enforcement
of the summons.
After obtaining the bank statements,3 respondent's revenue
agent determined the amount of income received by petitioner
based on the deposits to the various accounts. Included in the
bank deposits made by petitioner were payments he received as a
public insurance adjuster during the years at issue. Also
included in the bank deposits were two checks totaling $38,967,
which petitioner received on April 7, 1989, from the City of
Baltimore for professional services rendered to the city. To the
extent respondent's revenue agent could verify transfers between
petitioner's accounts, the revenue agent reduced the income
calculation by each amount which was transferred between accounts
3
All the monthly bank statements were obtained by the
revenue agent except for the August 1987 statement. Respondent's
revenue agent estimated the amount of August deposits by using a
weighted average of all the deposits in that year.
- 5 -
to prevent counting of deposits as income twice. Similarly,
amounts that the revenue agent found in the IRP data, and which
were also included in the bank deposit records, were removed from
the bank deposit calculation to prevent double counting.
OPINION
Petitioner contends that respondent's determinations in the
notice of deficiency should not be given a presumption of
correctness because the determinations are arbitrary.
Respondent's determinations are entitled to a presumption of
correctness. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111
(1933). Petitioner's argument implies that, because respondent
has made a number of errors or concessions, the notice of
deficiency is therefore arbitrary. We find no merit to this
argument. A determination that some part of a deficiency is
erroneous does not necessarily make the deficiency notice
arbitrary. Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-788.
We find no flaw in respondent's method of reconstructing
petitioner's income using the bank deposits method. The use of
the bank deposits method for computing income has long been
sanctioned by the courts. When a taxpayer keeps no books or
records and has large bank deposits, the Commissioner is not
arbitrary or capricious in resorting to the bank deposits method.
Mills v. Commissioner, 399 F.2d 744, 749 (4th Cir. 1968), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1967-67; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 867
- 6 -
(1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). Because petitioner
failed to produce books and records, respondent reconstructed his
income from bank deposits. Respondent's reconstruction consisted
of adding petitioner's deposits, identifying any deposits which
represented interaccount transfers, and identifying duplications
with the IRP information. At trial, respondent further made
reductions in the bank deposits calculation. Petitioner has
failed to show that respondent improperly reconstructed his gross
income. Indeed, respondent has provided sufficient evidence to
convince this Court that the notice of deficiency was neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable. Therefore, the burden rests with
petitioner to demonstrate that respondent's determinations are
erroneous. Rule 142(a).
Petitioner has introduced no credible evidence that
disproves any element of respondent's deficiency determination.
Petitioner failed to produce books or records. However, we shall
address several issues petitioner raised at trial regarding the
accuracy of respondent's determinations. First, petitioner
testified that while he was employed as a public insurance
adjuster, he deposited funds into his account and later
transferred a portion of the same funds to his clients. However,
petitioner failed to offer any evidence regarding the specifics
of these alleged transfers to alleged clients. He produced no
canceled checks, witnesses, or other records. We find that
petitioner's vague and self-serving testimony does not substitute
- 7 -
for the requirement that he maintain books and records. Mills v.
Commissioner, supra at 749; Harper v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1121,
1129 (1970).
Second, respondent reduced petitioner's income attributable
to the sale of certain securities by the amount of petitioner's
verifiable basis in those securities. With respect to the sale
of other securities, respondent included all the proceeds in
petitioner's income because no information was provided by
petitioner regarding his basis. Petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is entitled to a basis in the securities in
excess of that determined by respondent. Rule 142(a); Burnet v.
Houston, 283 U.S. 223, 227-228 (1931). Section 1012 provides
that the basis of property shall be the cost of such property.
Under the circumstances present here, "cost", for purposes of the
Code, means the amount paid by petitioner. Detroit Edison Co. v.
Commissioner, 319 U.S. 98, 102 (1943); Borg v. Commissioner, 50
T.C. 257, 263 (1968). Petitioner did not provide respondent with
any evidence regarding the cost to him of any of the sold
securities. We find that petitioner has not met his burden of
proving that he paid any amount in excess of that determined by
respondent.
Third, petitioner asserts that the bank charges that are
recorded on his bank statement should be allowed as deductions in
respondent's calculation of income. Section 162 allows as a
deduction all the ordinary and necessary business expenses paid
- 8 -
or incurred during the taxable year. Although the bank
statements may be taken as substantiation that bank charges were
paid, petitioner did not offer any evidence that any part of the
bank charges was ordinary and necessary business expenses.
Petitioner's bank accounts appear to be personal in nature, and
there is no indication that the accounts were used in a trade or
business. We find that petitioner has not met his burden of
proving that bank charges are proper deductions.
Respondent also determined additions to tax under section
6651(a)(1) for petitioner's failure to file his 1987 through 1992
returns. Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of 5
percent of the amount of the tax due for each month a return is
delinquent, up to a maximum of 25 percent. The addition to tax
is not applicable if it is shown that such failure is due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Sec. 6651(a)(1);
United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). Petitioner has
the burden of proving that his failure to file was due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect. Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 220-221 (1992).
Petitioner has failed to show that his failure to file
returns for the taxable 1987 through 1992 was due to reasonable
cause and not willful neglect. Petitioner is liable for the
additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable years
1987 through 1992.
- 9 -
Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for
additions to tax pursuant to section 6654(a) for failure to pay
estimated income tax. For the years in issue, petitioner had
substantial taxable income but made no estimated tax payments.
Imposition of the addition to tax under section 6654(a) applies
unless petitioner shows that one of the several statutory
exemptions applies. Sec. 6654(a); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner,
supra at 222; Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21
(1980). Petitioner has made no such showing.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.