Charles R. Bowden and Sue I. Bowden - Page 25

                                               - 25 -                                                  

                  In the absence of direct evidence, we could consider                                 
            credible, secondary evidence.  Malinowski v. Commissioner, 71                              
            T.C. 1120, 1125 (1979).  The only evidence offered by petitioners                          
            to carry their burden is their own testimony.  We found                                    
            Mr. Bowden’s testimony on this subject to be vague, conclusory,                            
            uncorroborated, and in many respects, contradictory.13                                     
                  Petitioners’ attorney, Mr. Handel, did not know who owned                            
            the machines after the Prudential Bancorp transaction.14                                   
            Mr. Handel disclaimed any personal knowledge of the agreements or                          
            their purported contents.                                                                  
                  Petitioners also relied on a September 20, 1989, letter from                         
            the law firm of Glass, Alper, Goldberg & Cohn, which contains a                            
            statement that ownership of the vending machines will vest in                              
            Mr. Handel’s client.  This letter, by itself, is inconclusive                              

                  13 In an effort to establish their ownership of the                                  
            machines, petitioners attempted to introduce into evidence “re-                            
            creations” of these purportedly lost documents.  At trial, we                              
            held that those documents were not admissible because they were                            
            hearsay.                                                                                   
                  14 The following exchange between respondent’s counsel and                           
            Mr. Handel is instructive:                                                                 
                  Q:  Okay.  And are there any documents showing that the                              
                  ownership went to the * * * [petitioners] -- clearly                                 
                  stating ownership went to the * * * [petitioners]?                                   
                  A:  No.  I don’t think so. I think they only alluded                                 
                  to. There is a release of the UCC interest in the                                    
                  machines by MDFC.                                                                    
            Respondent followed the same line of questioning with various                              
            financial institutions with consistent responses by Mr. Handel.                            




Page:  Previous  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011