- 14 -
evidence that disputed Mr. Gelcius' testimony that MBL made
payments to petitioner. The only questions that petitioner asked
Mr. Gelcius concerning the issue were: (1) "Do you have any
knowledge of me actually physically receiving the check and
depositing it in my bank account?", to which he responded: "I
was not asked to check on that. But no, I don't. But I could
have, though", and (2) "So as far as you know, this check could
have gone to Angelo Scharelli [the agency manager for the MBL
division in south Florida], who in turn deposits [it] in a master
bank account?", to which Mr. Gelcius responded: "I have no
knowledge of where that check would have went out. All I know is
that it would have been sent to Nicholas A. Paleveda." Mr.
Gelcius' testimony was uncontroverted.
Petitioners argue that they established at the audit that
MBL paid Stuart, which then paid $308,936 to petitioner. We,
however, decide petitioners' liability for income tax
deficiencies on the evidence produced at trial and not a previous
record developed at the administrative level, Greenberg's
Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, and petitioners did not
offer any documentary evidence establishing that MBL paid Stuart
and that Stuart paid petitioner. Additionally, petitioners did
not provide any account statements from NationsBank or other
documentary evidence to establish that petitioner received only
$308,936 in income during 1990. Finally, petitioners offered no
documentary evidence establishing that petitioner merely
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011