- 13 -
petitioner himself is unsure whether he deposited the
distribution proceeds and there is no evidence to establish that
he did, we find that the deposits in question are includable in
his income.
Further, petitioner contends that he issued checks totaling
$3,000 to Linda Holliday for services in 1987 and that she then
returned the money to him since they were dating so that he could
deposit it in his account. Petitioner claims that he had
Ms. Holliday endorse the checks so that he could redeposit them
and have a record for Federal income tax purposes. The only
documentary evidence petitioner presented to prove this
transaction was copies of checks payable to Ms. Holliday.
Ms. Holliday did not testify as to this matter, and petitioner
did not explain why she did not testify. Accordingly, we find
that petitioner has not met his burden of proof with respect to
the $3,000 deposit in 1987.
Petitioner next alleges that a $2,500 deposit in 1985
constituted the repayment by Peter Zelinski of sums owed to
petitioner and that $16,275 in deposits should not be included in
his 1987 income because they are the result of the repayment of a
loan he made to Gloria Treadwell. In both instances, there is no
evidence that petitioner lent money to or paid any expenses of
Mr. Zelinski or Ms. Treadwell. None of the alleged checks or
deposit slips are in evidence. Neither Mr. Zelinski nor
Ms. Treadwell testified at trial. Because there is no proof of
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