Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 T.C.M. 4

Persavich v. Commissioner

United States Tax Court

Decided January 14, 1960

United States Tax Court · decided 1960-01-14

Decided 1960-01-14

John and Louise Persavich v. Commissioner.
Persavich v. Commissioner
Docket No. 75877.
T.C. Memo 1960-3; 1960 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 285; 19 T.C.M. (CCH) 4; T.C.M. (RIA) 60003;
January 14, 1960
*285 John Persavich and Louise Persavich, 865 Foster Court, N.E., Grand Rapids, Mich., pro se. Robert W. Siegel, Esq., for the respondent.

MULRONEY

¶1Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

¶2MULRONEY, Judge: The respondent determined a deficiency in income tax of petitioners for 1954 in the amount of $280.48.

¶3Petitioners are husband and wife and they live in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Louise Persavich was employed as a waitress in the Schnitzelbank Restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan, during 1954. In the 1954 joint return she and her husband filed with the district director of internal revenue at Detroit, Michigan, income from tips in the sum of $75 was reported. Respondent determined petitioners received additional tip income in the year 1954 in the sum of $1,425.

¶4Petitioners appeared pro se and Louise, sole witness on behalf of petitioners, testified she kept no records as to the amount of income she received. She said: "Sometimes we made maybe $2 a day, and there were days when we didn't make but a dollar or 35 cents a day." Beyond saying she was a new girl at the restaurant and thus given a poor station near the door, this is the extent of her testimony.

¶5Tips are*286 part of compensation for services, and, therefore, taxable income. (June 30, 1959). Respondent's determination is presumptively correct and petitioners had the burden of proving it was not. Petitioners wholly failed in their burden of proof, and, therefore, respondent's determination is sustained.

¶6Decision will be entered for the respondent.

/19/tcm/4 · .json · Public domain