- 33 -
opposing party. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner,
6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
We do not apply that presumption here for several reasons.
First, petitioner offered Vernon's monthly reports for March,
June, and August 1986 and an unaudited statement of Vernon's
financial condition for July and August 1986. These exhibits
were admitted to show their effect on petitioner and not for
their truth. However, since petitioners offered the documents,
the rationale behind the negative inference under Wichita
Terminal does not apply. Second, petitioners introduced evidence
that the Dondi Financial stock became worthless in 1987. Wichita
Terminal does not apply to situations where a party provides
evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof. See Ianniello
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-415; Cohen v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1991-413. Third, respondent, not petitioner, had the
burden of proving that the Dondi Financial stock became worthless
no later than August 1, 1985. The Wichita Terminal presumption
generally applies where the party failing to produce the evidence
has the burden of proof. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1165. Fourth, respondent's contention
that we infer that testimony by prospective witnesses not called
at trial would be unfavorable to petitioner seems hypothetical at
best since respondent did not identify any available witnesses
who petitioners should have called.
f. Testimony of Hodges and Hogue
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011