- 7 -
employee, whose last name he could not recall, accepted the
winning lottery tickets from the two customers and then lost the
tickets. Each check was for $7,500.
The question is whether the purpose of the checks was for
lottery winnings and, if so, whether Mr. King received the normal
reimbursement from the State Lottery Bureau. Petitioners did not
explain the difference between the amount of the claimed
deduction and the total amount of the two checks. Neither check
indicates that it represents lottery winnings. One check
contains a notation that it was for "Lic #4617(731) Pattison
Newsstand". The other check contains a notation that it was for
"Lic #16170(43) Oxford Newsstand". Except for Mr. King's
testimony,6 we have no other evidence of the purpose of the
checks or the source of the money used to cover the checks. On
the basis of this record, we find that petitioners have not
proven that they are entitled to this deduction.
6We are not bound to accept Mr. King's testimony at face
value if it is improbable, unreasonable, or questionable. See
Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Davis v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 122,
140-141 (1987), affd. 866 F.2d 852 (6th Cir. 1989); Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Nicholas v. Commissioner, 70
T.C. 1057, 1064 (1978).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011