Allen Shay, T. C. Memo. 2026-103, filed 9/30/26, moved $24K from “Other Income” on his year-at-issue return to Sched E Rents Received on his 1040X, claiming a RA told him to do it. So when IRS claims a deficiency of $24K unreported income, Allen says he’s being taxed twice.

Except.

IRS proves to Judge Cathy (“NCY =. No Cognomen Yet”) Fung’s satisfaction that there’s 24K unreported per bank deposits analysis. See table at p. 4.

“Petitioner stipulated that his taxable income was $187,301. Respondent’s bank deposits analysis showed that petitioner’s taxable deposits were $212,401, which is $25,100 more than petitioner’s stipulated taxable income. Respondent conceded $1,100 in taxable income and now requires petitioner to include the remaining $24,000 in taxable income. This $24,000 reflects the amount that petitioner reported as ‘Other income’ on Line 21 of his original return and subsequently omitted from his amended return. In conducting his bank deposits analysis, respondent considered all known nontaxable sources of income, specifically deposits from petitioner’s Ameritrade and Bank of America accounts. Therefore, it is petitioner’s burden to prove respondent’s bank deposits analysis was unfair or inaccurate. See Price, 335 F.2d at 677 (‘If taxpayer felt that the Government’s [bank deposit method] was unfair or inaccurate, the burden was on him to show such unfairness or inaccuracy.’). Petitioner did not prove respondent’s reconstruction was in error and therefore did not carry his burden.” T. C. Memo. 2026-103, at p. 10.

Here’s the real problem.

” The Court recognizes that the similarity in numbers may be confusing. Simply stated, petitioner contends that the disputed $24,000 results from his moving approximately $24,000 of Property C rental income from Line 21 of his original return to Schedule E on his amended return as $24,420. Respondent conducted a bank deposits analysis, showing $25,100 of unreported income. And, after conceding $1,100, respondent correctly determined that petitioner still failed to report $24,000 of income. The similarity in amounts does not establish that they are the same income. Accordingly, we hold petitioner is liable for tax on $24,000 of income….” T. C. Memo. 2026-103, at p. 13.