- 32 -
Commissioner, 43 F.3d 788, 789-790 (2d Cir. 1995), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1993-621; Goldman v. Commissioner, supra; Freytag v.
Commissioner, supra.
In making the investment in Whitman, petitioner contends
that he reasonably relied on the advice of two individuals,
namely, his brother and Winer.
A. Petitioner’s Reliance on Winer
Petitioner contends that before he invested in Whitman, he
had a history of investing with Winer and that such investments
were financially successful. Therefore, petitioner argues, he
was justified on relying on Winer’s advice in deciding to invest
in Whitman. We disagree.
Although the record demonstrates that petitioner did invest
in several Winer-promoted investments from 1979 to 1981, there is
no evidence, other than petitioner’s unsupported allegation, that
such investments were financially successful. In this regard, it
is well established that the Court is “not required to accept the
self-serving testimony of petitioner * * * as gospel.” Tokarski
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). See Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992). It should have been a
simple matter for petitioner to produce documentary evidence
(e.g., investment reports, prior years’ tax returns) to support
his allegation. However, he did not. In this regard, it is also
well established that a party’s failure to introduce documentary
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011