- 6 -
Petitioner argues that although he does not have any documents to
evidence the expenses, the fact that he represented two clients
in their protracted civil matters necessarily sustains the
legitimacy and accuracy of the claimed expenses. Petitioner
claims the accuracy of these expenses is supported by the
extensive preparation, time, and energy involved, and the
expenditure of huge sums of money for expert testimony,
investigation, medical records, and research, in connection with
his cases. We disagree.
This Court has held that unverified oral testimony, with no
supporting documentary evidence is not enough. Hradesky v.
Commissioner, supra. We consider it incredulous that petitioner
could purportedly be so involved with the two civil cases, yet
cannot even produce any corroborative evidence to support the
expenses he allegedly incurred. We are cognizant of the
difficulty petitioner may have in reconstructing his expenses.
However, petitioner did not even attempt to convince the Court
that he made any effort whatsoever to do so. Petitioner claimed
that he expended huge sums of money, for example, to hire expert
witnesses to testify. We are perplexed as to why he did not
secure the testimony or affidavits of those expert witnesses to
prove that he did pay for their services.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011