- 22 -
and, thus, constitute items of gross income to them. Walter and
Friedgard contest that the Reprographics Plastics' deposits were
expended for their benefit and, indeed, contest that such funds
were available to them at all: "Walter Van Eck had only trust
authority over the Reprographics Plastics monies. Not only did
he not use any of it for personal purposes, none of it was
available to him for such purposes."
Petitioners have not convinced us that Walter only had
"trust authority" with regard to USB account 0894. Clearly, he
had control over the account, in the sense that he made all
deposits to the account, wrote all checks, and kept the records
with regard to the account. In testimony, Walter answered yes to
the question of whether he managed the account. We have no
adequate reason to believe that Walter's authority with respect
to USB account 0894 was restricted in any way. He has shown us
nothing establishing him as a fiduciary with respect to USB
account 0894. Walter failed to produce his brother, Jan, to
corroborate that Walter's authority was limited in any way. We
may infer by Walter's failure to call Jan that Jan's testimony
would not have been favorable to Walter. Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986) (quoting Blum v.
Commissioner, 59 T.C. 436, 440-441 (1972); "the fact that
petitioner did not offer any corroborative testimony * * * or
offer any explanation for not so doing weighs against him."); see
also Quita v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-309 (taxpayers'
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011