- 15 -
It is well established that we are not required to accept
self-serving testimony in the absence of corroborating evidence.
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992); Tokarski
v. Commissioner, supra at 77. Moreover, our analysis of
petitioner's testimony reveals inconsistencies that cast doubt
upon his credibility. Thus, there is no credible evidence that
the money actually belonged to Cos and Bro. Upon the basis of
the entire record, we simply do not believe that the money came
from the source petitioner claims. We find, therefore, that
petitioner has not met his burden of proving a nontaxable source
of the unreported income.
Issue 2. Additions to Tax for Fraud
Respondent asserts as his primary position that petitioner
is liable for additions to tax for fraud pursuant to section
6653(b)(1)(A) and (B) for 1987, and section 6653(b)(1) for 1988.
Petitioner asserts that respondent has failed to prove that the
funds deposited in the various safe deposit boxes were his
income, and that without such proof inferences of fraud cannot be
drawn from his use of fictitious names and his concealment of the
cash.
The existence of fraud is a question of fact to be resolved
upon consideration of the entire record. Gajewski v.
Commissioner, 67 T.C. 181, 199 (1976), affd. without published
opinion 578 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir. 1978). Fraud is not to be
imputed or presumed. Beaver v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 85, 92
(1970); Otsuki v. Commissioner, 53 T.C. 96 (1969). Respondent
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011