Zinovy Brodsky - Page 144




                                       - 85 -                                         
          Association that he later repaid.  In support of that contention,           
          petitioner relies on his self-serving testimony, on which we are            
          not required to, and we shall not, rely.37  On the record before            
          us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of               
          establishing that the June 26, 1992 deposit at issue represented            
          a personal loan from Amuke Business Association.                            
               With respect to the August 28, 1992 deposit at issue of                
          $15,896, petitioner contends that $3,000 of that deposit, which             
          we have found was derived from a $3,000 check from Commonwealth             
          Enterprises dated August 27, 1992, represented a personal loan              
          from Mr. Averbach who, along with Mr. Ferrer, participated with             
          Mr. Vulis in operating Amuke Group.  In support of that conten-             
          tion, petitioner relies on his self-serving testimony, on which             
          we are not required to, and we shall not, rely.38  On the record            


               37We note that, when questioned about the two checks total-            
          ing $7,000 from Amuke Business Association to petitioner, Mr.               
          Vulis, who at all relevant times was familiar with the activities           
          of that association, was unable to recall the purpose for which             
          Amuke Business Association issued those checks.                             
               Petitioner failed to offer into evidence any credible                  
          documentary evidence regarding the alleged $7,000 loan from Amuke           
          Business Association.  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 substantiated petitioner’s position regarding that alleged             
          loan.                                                                       
               38We note that petitioner did not call Mr. Averbach as a               
          witness and did not elicit any testimony from Mr. Vulis, who at             
          all relevant times was associated with Commonwealth Enterprises,            
          with respect to the purpose for which Commonwealth Enterprises              
          issued the $3,000 check to petitioner.  Nor did petitioner offer            
          into evidence any credible documentary evidence regarding the               
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011