- 23 -
that petitioners have about that reconstruction is that respon-
dent failed to reduce their bank deposits for each of the years
at issue by the total amount of such deposits for each such year
that petitioners claim was attributable to their cash hoard.
To support their position that the source of the unreported
income alleged by respondent under respondent's alternative
position in the answer was their cash hoard, petitioners rely
principally on the testimony of Mr. Mifsud and to a lesser extent
on the testimony of Ms. Mifsud, Ms. Mamo, and Mr. Mamo. We are
not required to, and we do not, accept the self-serving testimony
of petitioners. Nor are we required to, and we do not, accept
any testimony of petitioners' daughter Ms. Mamo or of Mr. Mamo,
the father of two of petitioners' grandchildren and their former
son-in-law, which serves petitioners' interest in this case. See
Boyett v. Commissioner, 204 F.2d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 1953);
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Hradesky v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d
821 (5th Cir. 1976).
We found the testimony of Mr. Mifsud and of Ms. Mifsud that
they had a cash hoard which was the source for each of the years
at issue for the bank deposits at issue to be implausible,
inconsistent with and/or not supported by objective evidence in
the record, and not credible. By way of illustration, we found
Mr. Mifsud's testimony that in 1951 his father brought approxi-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011