- 113 -
at issue represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading for 1993 that
it reported in its Form 1065 for that year.
With respect to the May 12, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related
deposit at issue of $41,950, petitioner contends that that
deposit, which we have found was derived from a $41,950 check
from East-West, represented (1) a gross receipt of MZ Trading
relating to the balance for the Miller beer transaction to which
petitioner claims the May 3, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related
deposit of $30,000 pertained and (2) a gross receipt of MZ
Trading relating to trade number 14, a transaction for lollipop
“candies”, reflected in MZ Trading’s purported 1993 transaction
summary, both of which MZ Trading reported in its Form 1065 for
1993. 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.69 On the record
before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden
of establishing that the May 12, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related
deposit at issue represented gross receipts of MZ Trading for
1993 that it reported in its Form 1065 for that year.
69Petitioner failed to call as a witness Mr. Kirdan, who
petitioner claims operated East-West at all relevant times, and
failed to offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence
in support of his position with respect to the May 12, 1993
alleged MZ Trading-related deposit at issue. 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 12, 1993 MZ
Trading-related deposit that any such evidence does not exist and
that, if it does exist, it would not have substantiated peti-
tioner’s position with respect to that deposit.
Page: Previous 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011