The offer of evidence of bank deposits was wholly insufficient in the absence of original source documents to confirm that all receipts were actually deposited (see, Matter of Club Marakesh v. Tax Commn., 151 A.D.2d 908, 909-910, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 616; Matter of Bonanno v. State Tax Commn., 145 A.D.2d 693, 694). In contrast, in Matter of King Crab Rest. v. Chu ( 134 A.D.2d 51), relied upon by petitioners, the auditor was supplied with guest checks, bank statements, a general ledger, a cash disbursements journal and purchase invoices for all but seven months of the audit period (supra, at 53).
When, as here, the taxpayer's records are insufficient, respondent must select a method reasonably accurate to assess the taxes due (Tax Law ยง 1138 [a] [1]; see, e.g., Matter of Meskouris Bros. v Chu, 139 A.D.2d 813, 814-815). The taxpayer must then establish by clear and convincing evidence that the audit method or tax assessment is erroneous (see, e.g., Matter of Bonanno v State Tax Commn., 145 A.D.2d 693). Respondent's determination must be confirmed if there are any facts or reasonable inferences from the facts supporting the determination (see, e.g., Matter of Finserv Computer Corp. v Tully, 94 A.D.2d 197, 200, affd 61 N.Y.2d 947). In this case, respondent's audit revealed that petitioners' books and records did not include all of Astorian Manor's sales, thus preventing an assessment based on actual sales.