- 13 -
cashed in various life insurance policies during 1990. The
proceeds from such loans and insurance policies, petitioner
contends, more than account for the imbalance between the
couple's earnings and expenditures for taxable year 1990. At
trial, however, when questioned whether she could substantiate
such allegations, petitioner explained that, although she
possessed documentary proof of the above-referenced loans, she
had not brought such documentation to court. Moreover, other
than her own testimony, petitioner did not offer any
corroboration for her assertion regarding the life insurance
policies allegedly cashed in by her former husband. Although
petitioner's testimony regarding the loans and life insurance
policies was not contradicted at trial, we are not required to
accept petitioner's self-serving testimony if we determine it to
be improbable or questionable. Lovell & Hart, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 456 F.2d 145, 148 (6th Cir. 1972), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1970-335; MacGuire v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 1239, 1244
(5th Cir. 1971), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-89; Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); see also Lerch v.
Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624 (7th Cir. 1989); Shapiro v. Rubens,
166 F.2d 659, 666 (7th Cir. 1948). Furthermore, it has long been
settled that a party's failure to introduce evidence within his
or her possession, and which, if true, would be favorable to him
or her, gives rise to the presumption that if produced such
evidence would be unfavorable. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011