- 68 -
actions at issue, and she may have been able to supply informa-
tion concerning matters as to which petitioner claimed ignorance,
such as the source of the deposits made by Forward that were used
as collateral.
We also note that the failure of a party to call available
witnesses to corroborate that party's testimony can justify
drawing an adverse inference from their absence. See Frierdich
v. Commissioner, 925 F.2d 180, 185 (7th Cir. 1991), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1989-393; see also Stoumen v. Commissioner, supra. Peti-
tioner's testimony was at times vague, evasive, and conclusory,
his credibility was challenged by respondent on cross-examina-
tion, and, based on our observation of his demeanor at trial, we
generally did not find him to be credible. The testimony of a
corroborating witness, such as Mme. Koo, would not have been
merely cumulative.
In order to avoid having an adverse inference drawn from the
failure to present a witness, a party may attempt, as petitioner
does here, to explain the reason that witness was not called.
See Case v. New York Central R.R., 329 F.2d 936, 937-938 (2d Cir.
1964); Schumacher v. United States, 216 F.2d 780, 787-788 (8th
Cir. 1954). If the failure to present a witness is not satis-
factorily explained, we may draw an adverse inference from that
witness' absence. See Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. at 108.
Page: Previous 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011