- 5 -
attempt to reconstruct his records, such as obtaining
verifications and/or copies of receipts or certifications of
transactions he engaged in with his book suppliers. Petitioner
produced no bank records or statements, copies of which could
have easily been obtained. The Court was not impressed with
petitioner's credibility as a witness. To begin with, he
produced no documentary information, such as a police report, to
establish that a break-in occurred. Moreover, if petitioner is
to be believed, the break-in occurred on either May 3 or 4, 1989;
however, the income tax return filed by petitioner and his then
wife bears signature dates of April 3, 1989, at least 1 month
prior to the purported break-in. Petitioner's explanation for
this was not plausible. He testified that, prior to leaving his
home to attend the Richmond convention, he and his wife presigned
the return on April 3, 1989, and he left the signed, blank return
at home. When he returned home sometime in May 1989, after the
break-in, sans records, he completed his previously signed blank
return based on his "terrific memory". Left unexplained are
reasons for the gap between May 1989 and the receipt of the
return by the Internal Revenue Service approximately 3 years
later.
Even if the Court should accept petitioner's version of what
happened, there are other matters regarding the return that are
questionable. For example, the Schedule C, which is handwritten,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011