- 64 -
petitioner’s line of credit account that had been included [in]
MZ Trading Company’s 1993 partnership taxable income.”19
We shall not allow petitioner to change on brief the purpose
for which he offered Mr. Oliveras’ summary at the further trial
in this case. Even if we were to admit Mr. Oliveras’ summary
into the record for the truth of its contents, that summary does
not establish as facts what petitioner contends it establishes.
Petitioner relies on the following statements of Mr. Oliveras
that appear at the bottom of the second page of Mr. Oliveras’
summary: “The bank deposit analysis reflects less deposits than
the gross receipts reported on the return. This is an indication
of receipts being shifted to other accounts or kept on hand by
* * * [MZ Trading]”. According to petitioner, the foregoing
statements establish that certain deposits into one or more of
petitioner’s accounts were included in MZ Trading’s taxable
income for 1993. We disagree. The statements of Mr. Oliveras on
which petitioner relies show only that Mr. Oliveras believed
that, because the bank deposits analysis that he performed for
1993 with respect to MZ Trading showed less deposits of MZ
19On brief, petitioner also relies on Mr. Oliveras’ summary
in order to support petitioner’s contention that during 1993 he
made a capital contribution of approximately $38,000 to MZ
Trading. Mr. Oliveras’ summary does not support petitioner’s
contention. Mr. Oliveras’ summary identifies two amounts, i.e.,
$36,279 and $14,000, as capital contributions. That summary does
not identify who made such capital contributions or when such
capital contributions were made. Even if we were to admit Mr.
Oliveras’ summary into the record for the truth of its contents,
that summary does not establish that during 1993 petitioner made
a capital contribution of approximately $38,000 to MZ Trading.
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011