Zinovy Brodsky - Page 20




                                       - 109 -                                         
          deposit represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading that it re-                
          ported in its Form 1065 for 1993.                                            
               With respect to the April 26, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-                  
          related deposit at issue of $22,500, petitioner contends that                
          that deposit, which we have found was derived from a $22,500                 
          check from Mr. Vulis, represented a loan to MZ Trading for the               
          purchase of beer.  Petitioner failed to raise the April 26, 1993             
          alleged MZ Trading-related deposit of $22,500 as an issue in                 
          petitioner’s further trial memorandum.  Accordingly, pursuant to             
          the Court’s March 31, 2000 Order, we shall not address that                  
          matter.64                                                                    
               With respect to the April 26, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-                  
          related deposit at issue of $77,580, petitioner contends that                
          that deposit, which we have found was derived from a $77,580                 
          check from East-West, represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading              


               64Assuming arguendo that petitioner had raised as an issue              
          in petitioner’s further trial memorandum the Apr. 26, 1993                   
          alleged MZ Trading-related deposit of $22,500, on the instant                
          record, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of            
          showing that that deposit represented a loan from Mr. Vulis to MZ            
          Trading.  Petitioner relies on Mr. Guterman’s testimony to                   
          support that contention, on which we are not required to, and we             
          shall not, rely.  We note that petitioner did not question Mr.               
          Vulis specifically about the $22,500 loan that he allegedly made             
          to MZ Trading.  We infer from petitioner’s failure to elicit any             
          such testimony from Mr. Vulis that any such testimony would not              
          have been favorable to petitioner’s position regarding that                  
          alleged loan.  Petitioner failed to offer into evidence any                  
          credible documentary evidence supporting his position that the               
          $22,500 check from Mr. Vulis represented a loan to MZ Trading.               
          We infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any such documen-              
          tary 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 that alleged loan.                                  




Page:  Previous  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011