- 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 would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011