- 70 -
6663(a) on which respondent has the burden of proof, sec.
7454(a); Rule 142(b), petitioner has the burden of proof on the
determinations in the notices that remain at issue, see Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In this
connection, with respect to the deductions claimed by petitioner,
deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and
petitioner bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any
deductions claimed. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79,
84 (1992).
The Court’s Evaluation of Evidence
in the Record on Which the Parties Rely
Both petitioner and respondent rely on certain testimonial
and documentary evidence to support their respective positions on
the various issues in this case.
Testimonial Evidence
At the trial, respondent called Ms. Rodegeb and Ms. Martin
as witnesses, and petitioner called himself and Mr. DiBernardo as
witnesses. At the further trial, respondent called no witnesses,
and petitioner called himself, Dan J. Jordan (Mr. Jordan), Ms.
Rodegeb, Ms. Martin, Mr. Raja, Mr. Syelsky, Mr. Vulis, Mr.
Dubrovsky, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Oliveras, and Mr. Guterman as wit-
nesses.
We note initially that throughout much of the examination of
certain of petitioner’s witnesses at the further trial peti-
tioner’s counsel asked leading questions, to which respondent
objected on numerous occasions. The pervasiveness of such
leading questions during the examination of certain of peti-
Page: Previous 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011