You are here: / / “Indirect Audit” to Determine Cash Receipts in Restaurant Okay

“Indirect Audit” to Determine Cash Receipts in Restaurant Okay

The audit division of the Department of Taxation and Finance found the petitioner’s cash sales receipts inadequate to perform an audit.  The audit division therefore used a one-day “indirect audit” to estimate what petitioner’s cash sales were (a one-day observation of the operation of the restaurant).  In upholding the method used by the audit division to determine under-reporting of cash receipts, the Third Department wrote:

Where,  as here, a  taxpayer fails to maintain sufficient records, the Division may  resort to an  indirect audit and  the taxpayer challenging such an  audit has  the “burden of  establishing by  clear and  convincing evidence  that the audit method or tax assessment [was] erroneous” … .   Although  a  longer audit period might have produced a more accurate representation of petitioner’s business activity, nonetheless petitioner failed to meet  its heavy  burden of establishing the unreasonableness or inaccuracy of the length used and method employed by the Division in its indirect audit under  the circumstances … .  Matter of Hwang v Tax Appeals Tribunal …, 512991, 3rd Dept 4-11-13

 

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WARRANTED VACATING THE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF BANK’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED CONFERENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Untimely Initial Appearance Does Not Mandate Dismissal as Long as the Right to a Speedy Fact-Finding Hearing Is Not Violated
ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THEM CROSS-CORROBORATED ONE ANOTHER AND WERE THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE.
OWNER OF SEASONAL BUSINESS WAS NOT TOTALLY UNEMPLOYED AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
SAFE Act Restrictions on Ownership of Assault Rifles and Ammunition Feeding Devices Constitutional
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY THE INSURED ABOUT A PRIOR BITE BY A DOG, AND WHETHER THERE ACTUALLY WAS A PRIOR BITE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON WHETHER A CANINE POLICY EXCLUSION APPLIED AND WHETHER THERE WAS A TIMELY DISCLAIMER (THIRD DEPT).
DESPITE RULING THAT NO EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO TALK TO COUNSEL COULD BE PRESENTED, TWO TESTIFYING WITNESSES VIOLATED THAT RULING, BECAUSE THAT EVIDENCE CONFLICTED WITH THE DEFENSE STRATEGY A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE RELIABILITY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED BY THE HEARING OFFICER, DETERMINATION ANNULLED AND EXPUNGED (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Conduct in Prison Justified Upward Departure (SORA) Immunity for Land Owners Allowing Use of Land by Snowmobilers