- 7 -
C. Skorniak, and Michael D. Friederick.3 We found the testimony
of each of those witnesses at times general, vague, conclusory,
and/or internally inconsistent. Those witnesses also contra-
dicted each other with respect to the date of the completion of
certain construction work on the 3405 house and the date on which
petitioners moved into that house. We also found their recollec-
tion of specific matters relating to those events to be poor or
at best hazy. It is also significant that Mr. Skorniak's tes-
timony concerning when petitioners moved into the 3405 house was
inconsistent with prior statements that he had made to Ms.
Richards during the course of her examination of petitioners'
1990 return.4 Under the circumstances presented here, we are not
required to, and we generally do not, rely on the testimony of
the witnesses presented by petitioners to sustain their burden of
establishing error in respondent's determination relating to
section 1034. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632
(7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commis-
sioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam
T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77
(1986).
Section 61(a)(3) provides that a taxpayer must include in
3 Although petitioner Mary Skorniak was present during the
entire trial, she did not testify.
4 We found Ms. Richards credible.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011