- 92 -
tioner had not carried his burden of proving that he did not have
possession, custody, or control of the documents that had been
requested by respondent and that had not been produced by him and
that, therefore, respondent's motion to compel was granted in
that those documents must be produced by petitioner. In so
ruling, the Court found petitioner's testimony at that eviden-
tiary hearing to be contradictory, vague, evasive, nonresponsive,
and not credible in certain respects. The Court therefore grant-
ed respondent's motion to compel. In the Court's written order,
dated October 27, 1993, confirming its oral ruling granting re-
spondent's motion to compel, the Court restated those findings
and conclusions. After considering petitioner's arguments on
brief, we remain persuaded that petitioner failed to show why he
should not have been compelled to produce the documents in ques-
tion, and we reaffirm our granting of respondent's motion to
compel. See Rosenfeld v. Commissioner, supra at 117.
After the Court orally ruled on respondent's motion to
compel, respondent apparently assumed that the Court intended to
impose a sanction on petitioner and inquired whether that sanc-
tion was that petitioner was not to be allowed to elicit tes-
timony relating to the documents that the Court ordered him to
produce. The Court indicated that it was not imposing any sanc-
tion at that time. During petitioner's testimony at the trial of
these cases, which resumed after the hearing on respondent's mo-
tion to compel, respondent requested the Court not to allow peti-
tioner to testify with respect to the BB Loan No. 3 transaction
Page: Previous 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011