- 31 -
could have called Mr. Glen as a witness at trial but
chose not to do so. This creates a presumption that his
testimony would have been unfavorable to petitioners, or
at least suggests that the testimony would not have
supported their position. See Wichita Terminal Elevator
Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162
F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947); see also Simon v. Commissioner,
830 F.2d 499, 506 (3d Cir. 1987), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-
156; Schauer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-237; Song
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-446.
Based upon the record of this case, we do not know
whether Mr. Glen or some other member of his firm prepared
and signed the subject returns. Petitioner testified that
he did not recollect who signed the returns. We also do
not know whether Mr. Glen or other members of the firm had
experience or expertise regarding qualified plans, such
that petitioners' alleged reliance on their advice was
reasonable. Furthermore, there has been no showing of
the specific information that petitioners provided to
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011