- 108 -
We turn now to petitioner’s contentions with respect to each
of the alleged MZ Trading-related deposits.62 With respect to
the first such deposit at issue on February 10, 1993 of $23,891,
petitioner contends that that deposit, which we have found was
derived from a $23,891 check from Commonwealth Enterprises,
represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading that MZ Trading re-
ported in its Form 1065 for 1993 and that “relates to MZ Trading
trade number 2 [a transaction for the purchase of shoes reflected
in MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transaction summary], less ship-
ping costs”. In support of that contention, petitioner relies on
Mr. Guterman’s testimony, on which we are not required to, and we
shall not, rely.63 On the record before us, we find that peti-
tioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that that
62In considering petitioner’s contentions with respect to
each of the alleged MZ Trading-related deposits, we shall not
restate that we are not required to, and we shall not, rely on
Mr. Jordan’s testimony, including his expert report and the
addendum to that report, and MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transac-
tion summary. Nor shall we restate that Mr. Oliveras’ summary of
MZ Trading’s deposits during 1993 does not establish petitioner’s
claim that certain of MZ Trading’s gross receipts for 1993, which
it reported in its Form 1065 for 1993 and which petitioner claims
were deposited during that year into MZ Trading’s bank account,
were deposited into certain of petitioner’s accounts.
63Mr. Vulis, who at all relevant times was associated with
Commonwealth Enterprises, did not recall the purpose of the
$23,891 check that Commonwealth Enterprises issued to petitioner.
Petitioner failed to offer into evidence any credible
documentary evidence that supports petitioner’s contention that
the purpose of the $23,891 check from Commonwealth Enterprises
was to pay MZ Trading for a transaction relating to shoes. We
infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any such documentary
evidence that any such evidence does not exist and that, if it
does exist, it would not have substantiated petitioner’s position
with respect to the Feb. 10, 1993 deposit at issue.
Page: Previous 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011