- 7 -
The only witnesses were petitioner and his son, Donald C.
Chiappetti. Petitioner's testimony was self-serving and con-
flicted with certain provisions in the purchase contract that are
directly apposite to the issue in this case. Similarly, Donald
C. Chiappetti's testimony served the interests of his father and
conflicted with those same provisions in the purchase contract.
Under such circumstances, we are not required to, and we general-
ly do not, rely on their testimony to sustain petitioners' burden
of proving error in respondent's determinations. See Geiger v.
Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602,
605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964); Tokarski v. Com-
missioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir.
1976).
In the notice, respondent determined that the amounts paid
during the years at issue by Donald C. Chiappetti to CPC that
were attributable to the covenant not to compete represented
income to petitioner. It is well settled that consideration paid
for a bona fide covenant not to compete is income to the seller.
Sonnleitner v. Commissioner, 598 F.2d 464, 466 (5th Cir. 1979),
3(...continued)
unconditionally admit those exhibits into evidence as relevant,
we note that petitioners do not rely on them on brief, and we did
not find them helpful and thus did not rely on them in reaching
our holding herein.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011