- 110 -
for 1993 that it reported in its Form 1065 for 1993 and that
relates to trade number 11, a transaction for candies, reflected
in MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transaction summary. In support
of that contention, petitioner relies on his self-serving testi-
mony and Mr. Guterman’s testimony, on which we are not required
to, and we shall not, rely.65 On the record before us, we find
that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing
that the April 26, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit at
65We note that the testimony of petitioner and of Mr.
Guterman that the $77,580 check from East-West was a gross
receipt of MZ Trading relating to trade number 11 reflected in MZ
Trading’s purported 1993 transaction summary is inconsistent with
their testimony regarding the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-
related deposit. Petitioner and Mr. Guterman testified (1) that
the $77,580 check from East-West that was used to make the Apr.
26, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit of $77,580 repre-
sented a gross receipt of MZ Trading for the transaction for
“candies” shown as trade number 11 in MZ Trading’s purported 1993
transaction summary and (2) that the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ
Trading-related deposit of $37,680 represented a loan for that
alleged transaction. In addition to the internal inconsistencies
in the respective testimony of petitioner and of Mr. Guterman,
their testimony is contradicted by certain entries for trade
number 11 reflected in MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transaction
summary, which show what appear to be the amount “$47,976" under
the column headed “cost” and the amount “$58,500" under the
column headed “sold”.
Petitioner failed to call as a witness Mr. Kirdan, who
petitioner contends operated East-West at all relevant times, and
failed to offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence
regarding the Apr. 26, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit.
We infer from petitioner’s failure to call Mr. Kirdan that his
testimony would not have been favorable to petitioner’s position
regarding that deposit. We infer from petitioner’s failure to
proffer any credible documentary evidence regarding the Apr. 26,
1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit that any such evidence
does not exist and that, if it does exist, it would not have
substantiated petitioner’s position regarding that alleged
deposit.
Page: Previous 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011