- 11 -
acquire the muscle car collection. Petitioners' failure to
produce evidence within their possession and which, if true,
would be favorable to them, raises the presumption that if
produced, it would be unfavorable to them. Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162
F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
The only evidence offered by petitioners to carry their
burden is Mr. Garrett's own testimony and that of his accountant,
Mr. Knutzen. We find much of Mr. Garrett's testimony on this
subject to be vague, confused, self-serving, and uncorroborated.
Under the circumstances, we are not required to, and we do not,
rely on that testimony to support petitioners' position in this
case. See Estate of DeNiro v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 327, 330-
331 (6th Cir. 1984), affg. in part and remanding in part T.C.
Memo. 1982-497; Lovell & Hart, Inc. v. Commissioner, 456 F.2d
145, 148 (6th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-335; Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 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).
Nor do we find Mr. Knutzen's testimony any more persuasive
on this issue. When asked by petitioners' attorney what steps he
took to verify the $800,000 basis claimed by Mr. Garrett, Mr.
Knutzen provided the following testimony:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011