to their customers they received money as follows they get so groceries for food stamps or for with vouchers which is the state program that they would take personal argument i should say they were for this from the sale of groceries that's what they represent in one thousand nine hundred one nine point eight percent are just about ten percent of the total deposits to that the the most customers would come in and cash or check they would buy a few groceries a six pack of beer bread or whatever maybe if it was a would make a deposit to what we've termed in our briefs and referred to the trial as the deposit account that no cash was ever fucking there only the third party checks and the other three items that i discussed then when mr troy do he would immediately write a check generally for the full amount of the deposit he deposit thirty thousand dollars he would write a check for thirty thousand dollars and obtain that in cash then he would it as it averaged out thirty percent of that amount and deposit it into an operating account that he used to buy merchandise to pay them towards t utilities the other costs of doing business the remaining seventy percent was taken back to the store put in the safe and was used to cast checks for for the remainder of that period before the next deposit now how do we know what mr toy took out for himself what we've now accounted for one hundred percent of the money out of the deposit account that went back to the operat amount that your client probably took out for his own personal use which amounted to income from whatever source derived and determine the difference between what he reported and what was estimated presentation of the evidence of the tax court judge saying that your methodology should have been used rather than the commission well yes because our argument it seems to me that in essence you're making a fairness or or almost an equitable argument but your client's hands are not clean because your client as a taxpayer did not meet its burden of keeping adequate records and  frankly to be very candid it sounds a little hollow for the taxpayer to be saying the method that the commissioner used was not fair when the reason that the commissioner heavy use the equivocal method that it used was bec around twice a week for four of a year the bank the bottles would reflect a million forty thousand dollars in income and yet none of it would be income well you but you started actually argued saying that you said you were running  trial and we submit that the trial judge the tax court judge was not clearly erroneous in that case in fact his finding is completely supported by the record this is an unreported some authority that said that because the burden is on the taxpayer to keep out of court records doesn't the case law support an imposition of one hundred percent of the amount in the absence of any record other words the burden really is on the taxpayer to come forward and say why all of the money that the i r s can point their finger to was not income well that's correct it's june and the commissioner establish a linkage between income producing activity and  i understand it mr choice chief argument against the reconstruction years that in his view it doesn't account for the check cashing operation it doesn't account in his view for the recycling o it out and we show that it was tracked it out what the commissioner give specifically was to take all the deposits into all the accounts and that figure is correct it's not disputed then the commissioner subtracted from that the first account the deposit account because it is known that of this money went into the check cashing operation it is also understood that some of it went into personal expenditures but we're giving the taxpayer credit for that this is why this is a conservative reconstruction even though we know that some of the money taken out of the deposit account was used for her she was expenditures indeed constitute income we're giving him credit for all of it because some of it went into the check cashing also the commissioner is not counting into this original pile any of the cash lives retained in the store any of the cash that never went into the bank to part none of that enters into the accounting so at the end of the day all possible sources of campeche that could have been recycled to the check cashing account had been the women needed from the income total that the commissioner has arrived yet there are three possible sources one is cash retained in the store that never enters into the into the into the sum the second is cash taken out of the deposit account and returned to the store for check cashing purposes or for any purpose for that matter including so having accounted for all possible cash used in the check cashing all that remains unreported income and there really is no way logically in the present record for the taxpayer to get around that you had as you get the total in returns that's also lower than mr troy is needed in an interview with eight i r s auditor he admitted that he had underreported fifteen thousand dollars a month over the two year period that comes to two hundred eighty thousand approximately two million dollars and then there's the are very big count of the over six hundred thousand dollars a total of two point six million dollars that we're we're considering here of that and now the government has has rightly taken the intervention of the six twenty five and removed from the equation and then they say what we're going to do is we're going to take the rest of it and remove it from the equation but they should have taken the full amount that was