- 119 -
not required to, and we shall not, rely.76 On the record before
us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
establishing that the September 7, 1993 deposit at issue repre-
sented a repayment of a loan that petitioner had made to Mr.
Guterman’s wife.
Claimed Cost of Goods Sold
In the notice for 1991 and 1992 and the notice for 1993,
respondent disallowed for those three years claimed Schedule C
cost of goods sold of $12,849, $113,935, and $54,337, respec-
tively.
Petitioner contends that respondent erred in disallowing
$12,130 and $57,084 of claimed Schedule C cost of goods sold for
1991 and 1992, respectively.77
76Petitioner failed to question Mr. Guterman about why he
made the $3,000 payment to petitioner, which was the source of
the Sept. 7, 1993 deposit at issue. Even if petitioner had
questioned Mr. Guterman about that payment, we would not have
been required to rely on Mr. Guterman’s testimony. Petitioner
failed to call Mr. Guterman’s wife regarding petitioner’s allega-
tion that he lent her $3,000. We infer from petitioner’s failure
to call Mr. Guterman’s wife that her testimony would not have
been favorable to petitioner’s position. Petitioner failed to
offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence showing
that he lent $3,000 to Mr. Guterman’s wife prior to the date on
which petitioner claims Mr. Guterman repaid that alleged loan.
We infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any such documen-
tary evidence that any such evidence does not exist and that, if
any such evidence does exist, it would not have substantiated
petitioner’s position with respect to the Sept. 7, 1993 deposit
at issue.
77Petitioner also argues that respondent failed to sustain
respondent’s burden of proof with respect to the additional
$42,913 of the cost of goods sold for 1993 that respondent
alleged should be disallowed in respondent’s amendment to answer.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011