- 116 -
With respect to the August 30, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-
related deposit at issue of $22,000, petitioner relies on his
self-serving testimony and Mr. Guterman’s testimony, on which we
are not required to, and we shall not, rely.73 On the record
before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden
of establishing that the August 30, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-
related deposit 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 September 14, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-
related deposit of $17,700, as noted above, prior to the trial in
this case, respondent conceded that $16,700 of that deposit is
not taxable to petitioner. Prior to that trial, petitioner
conceded that the remaining $1,000 of the September 14, 1993
alleged MZ Trading-related deposit of $17,700 constituted a
taxable commission to him. Petitioner reaffirmed at the further
trial in this case that he had made that concession. Despite his
concession, petitioner contends on brief that no portion of the
September 14, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit is taxable
to him. On the record before us, we conclude that petitioner
73Petitioner failed to call as a witness Mr. Kirdan regard-
ing the Aug. 30, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit at
issue. We infer from petitioner’s failure to call Mr. Kirdan
that his testimony with respect to that deposit would not have
been favorable to petitioner’s position with respect to that
alleged deposit. Petitioner also failed to offer into evidence
any credible documentary evidence in support of his position
regarding the Aug. 30, 1993 alleged MZ Trading-related deposit.
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
contention with respect to that deposit.
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011