- 8 - To substantiate their claim regarding the $10,000 gift from Mr. Margolis' mother, petitioners rely solely on their own uncorroborated testimony. Petitioners did not produce any canceled checks or any other admissible evidence to prove their claim. We are not required to, and do not, accept petitioners' self-serving testimony. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, supra; Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-517, affd. without published opinion 66 F.3d 325 (6th Cir. 1995). Similarly, petitioners rely principally on their own self- serving testimony to establish that they deposited over 95 percent of Mrs. Margolis' self-employment income to their account. Again, we do not find petitioners' self-serving testimony sufficient or particularly reliable in that regard. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, supra; Hawkins v. Commissioner, supra. The record in this case contains many facts contrary to petitioners' testimony. We find it unnecessary to dissect painstakingly and analyze petitioners' testimony regarding the source of the unexplained deposits. See Hawkins v. Commissioner, supra. However, as an example we refer to an instance where we find petitioners' testimony to be inconsistent and improbable. Petitioners testified as follows: Mrs. Margolis would cash each check--other than the first three--she received from Leo Art at Hanover Bank located in the Empire State Building on the day she received the check, usually on a Friday. Mrs. Margolis wouldPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011