- 12 - Petitioner did not introduce testimony or other evidence from either Peat Marwick or the Macks. In fact, petitioner failed to present any evidence, other than his own testimony, to corroborate his argument that Peat Marwick improperly omitted the $4 million from the Schedule K-1 for the Bilzerian & Mack partnership return for 1986 and that petitioner was not aware of the characterizations made by Peat Marwick. In addition, petitioner’s amended 1986 return reports the previously omitted $4 million as “Adjustments to Schedule C - Income From Sales”. This is consistent with Peat Marwick’s original characterization of this amount as “Personal Gain” and inconsistent with petitioner’s argument that it was income from the partnership. In this situation, we are not required to, and we do not, rely on petitioner’s self-serving testimony. Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Petitioner argues that Mr. Norris’s testimony supports his claim that the $4 million omission was a result of Mr. Norris’s mistake. Mr. Norris testified that he learned in 1988 that he had made a mistake in preparing petitioner’s 1986 return because he “missed about $4 million in income”. However, Mr. Norris’s testimony was vague, evasive, and contradictory.10 The following 10We note that Mr. Norris was previously a partner of petitioner’s, and Mr. Norris, a resident of California, testified that at the time of trial he stayed at petitioner’s personal residence in Tampa, Florida.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011