Charles Y. Choi Jin Yi Choi v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
94 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5467, 379 F.3d 638, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16413 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a taxpayer fails to maintain adequate records, the Commissioner is permitted to reconstruct income using an indirect method, such as the 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method, so long as identifiable non-taxable amounts are properly subtracted from the total deposits.
Facts:
- Charles Y. Choi and his wife Jin Yi Choi owned and operated a grocery store in Arizona during 1991 and 1992.
- The Chois did not maintain adequate business records for the store during these years.
- As a service, the store cashed payroll checks for customers who also purchased groceries.
- These payroll checks were deposited in full into the grocery store’s bank account, and the portion not spent on groceries was returned to the customer in cash.
- The only two sources of cash in the store's registers were cash from grocery sales and cash withdrawn from the bank after checks were deposited.
- In 1991, the Chois deposited $2,066,381, none of it in cash, and withdrew approximately $1,420,200 in cash to have available in the registers.
- In 1996, Charles Y. Choi pled guilty to criminal tax evasion for the 1992 tax year.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue assessed tax deficiencies and a civil fraud penalty against Charles and Jin Yi Choi for the 1991 and 1992 tax years.
- The Chois petitioned the U.S. Tax Court to challenge the Commissioner's determinations.
- The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner's deficiency and penalty assessments, finding the 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method was properly used.
- The Tax Court also ruled that Charles Choi was barred by collateral estoppel from challenging the 1992 fraud penalty due to his prior criminal conviction for tax evasion.
- The Chois, as appellants, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Commissioner's use of the 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method to reconstruct a taxpayer's income improperly fail to account for non-taxable funds when the Commissioner subtracts the maximum possible amount of non-taxable cash that could have been deposited from the taxpayer's check-cashing service?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Chief Judge
No. The Commissioner's use of the 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method was proper because all identifiable non-income amounts were correctly subtracted. The court reasoned that when a taxpayer fails to keep adequate records, the Commissioner is entitled to use indirect methods to reconstruct income. The 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method presumes that, after subtracting non-taxable sources, the remaining deposits constitute taxable income. Here, the only non-taxable activity was cashing payroll checks. The court found that the maximum amount of non-taxable money the Chois could have deposited was equal to the amount of cash they had available to return to customers, which was the $1,420,200 they withdrew from the bank in 1991. Because the Commissioner properly subtracted this entire amount as 'identifiable non-income,' the remaining amount was correctly presumed to be taxable income. The court also held that the Tax Court did not err in rejecting the Chois' alternative 'percentage markup' method, as it was based on unreliable data and unsubstantiated testimony.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant authority of the Commissioner to reconstruct income when taxpayers fail to maintain adequate records. It solidifies the legitimacy of the 'bank deposits plus cash expenditures' method, placing a heavy burden on the taxpayer to disprove the Commissioner's calculations with credible evidence. The ruling demonstrates that simply proposing an alternative reconstruction method is insufficient; the taxpayer must provide reliable, verifiable data to challenge the government's assessment. This precedent serves as a strong deterrent against poor record-keeping and underscores that in the absence of taxpayer records, courts will grant considerable deference to the Commissioner's presumptively correct methodology.
