Zinovy Brodsky - Page 142




                                       - 83 -                                         
          Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77.34  As for the checks               
          that petitioner claims represented repayments by him to Mr.                 
          Dubrovsky of the alleged $10,000 loan, on the instant record, we            
          find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing              
          the purpose of those checks.35  On the record before us, we find            
          that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing              
          that $10,000 of the February 12, 1991 deposit in question repre-            
          sented a personal loan from Mr. Dubrovsky.                                  
               With respect to the April 30, 1992 deposit at issue of                 
          $15,000, petitioner contends that that deposit, which we have               
          found was derived from a $15,000 cashier’s check issued by Great            
          Western Bank, represented a personal loan from Mr. Ferrer.  In              
          support of his contention that Mr. Ferrer’s funds were used to              
          purchase that cashier’s check, petitioner relies on his self-               
          serving testimony, on which we are not required to, and we shall            


               34The principle that we are not required to rely on testi-             
          mony, even if uncontradicted, that we find to be, inter alia, not           
          credible, questionable, unreasonable, general, and/or vague is so           
          well established that hereinafter we shall not cite the case law            
          supporting that principle.                                                  
               35Petitioner could have issued those checks, which total               
          $9,525, to Mr. Dubrovsky for purposes other than as repayments of           
          the alleged $10,000 loan.  In this connection, petitioner failed            
          to offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence to                 
          establish that $10,000 of the Feb. 12, 1991 deposit in question             
          represented a personal loan from Mr. Dubrovsky and Ms. Dubrovsky            
          and that the checks from petitioner to Mr. Dubrovsky on which               
          petitioner relies represented repayments of the alleged $10,000             
          loan.  We infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any such               
          documentary evidence that any such evidence does not exist and              
          that, if any such evidence does exist, it would not have substan-           
          tiated petitioner’s position with respect to $10,000 of the Feb.            
          12, 1991 deposit in question.                                               




Page:  Previous  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011