Zinovy Brodsky - Page 24




                                       - 112 -                                         
          posted on that statement on May 4, 1993.67  On the record before             
          us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of                
          establishing that the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related                 
          deposit at issue represented a loan to MZ Trading.                           
               With respect to the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related              
          deposit at issue of $30,000, petitioner contends that that                   
          deposit, which we have found was derived from a $30,000 check                
          from East-West, represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading that MZ            
          Trading reported in its Form 1065 for 1993 and that related to a             
          transaction for Miller beer (Miller beer transaction).  In                   
          support of that contention, petitioner relies on his self-serving            
          testimony and Mr. Guterman’s testimony, on which we are not                  
          required to, and we shall not, rely.68  On the record before us,             
          we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of estab-             
          lishing that the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit              


               67Petitioner failed to offer into evidence any credible                 
          documentary evidence establishing his contentions with respect to            
          the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit at issue.  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 that deposit.                                                
               68Petitioner failed to call as a witness Mr. Kirdan and                 
          failed to offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence              
          in support of his position with respect to the May 3, 1993                   
          alleged MZ Trading-related deposit of $30,000.  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 May 3, 1993 alleged              
          MZ Trading-related deposit of $30,000 that any such evidence does            
          not exist and that, if it does exist, it would not have substan-             
          tiated petitioner’s position with respect to that deposit.                   




Page:  Previous  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011