Joyce E. & Jerome G. Beery - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          bankruptcy proceeding.  However, Mr. Beery did not offer the                
          transcript as evidence at trial and presented no other factual              
          testimony or documentation to establish the existence of the                
          asserted 1975 NOL.  Mr. Beery relies solely on his own testimony            
          to substantiate petitioners’ deductions.                                    
               It is well established that this Court is not bound to                 
          accept a taxpayer’s self-serving, unverified, and undocumented              
          testimony.  Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).                
          We reject Mr. Beery’s testimony as self-serving and unreliable in           
          the absence of any credible evidence documenting the existence of           
          an unused NOL carryforward from 1975 and in view of the Forms               
          1041 filed by the Kansas bankruptcy trustee, which are in                   
          evidence and show that the 1975 NOL was used fully before the               
          years at issue.                                                             
               We hold, therefore, that petitioners are not entitled to               
          deduct 1975 NOL carryforwards on their 1998 and 1999 tax returns,           
          and we sustain respondent’s determination on this issue.                    
          II. Charitable Contributions                                                
               Petitioners claimed a deduction on their 1998 and 1999 tax             
          returns for charitable contributions in the amounts of $9,914 and           
          $12,341, respectively.  Respondent disallowed deductions for                
          charitable contributions of $420 in 1998 and $420 in 1999.                  
          Respondent contends that petitioners have failed to provide the             
          required documentation to substantiate the deductions.                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011