- 86 -
before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden
of establishing that $3,000 of the August 28, 1992 deposit at
issue represented a personal loan from Mr. Averbach.
With respect to the December 15, 1992 deposit at issue of
$20,000, petitioner contends that that deposit, which we have
found was derived from a $20,000 check from Mr. Syelsky, repre-
sented a personal loan from Mr. Syelsky.39 In support of that
contention, petitioner relies on his self-serving testimony and
Mr. Syelsky’s testimony. We are not required to, and we shall
not, rely on petitioner’s testimony. Mr. Syelsky testified that
he lent $20,000 to petitioner. Although Mr. Syelsky was unable
to remember whether he had made that loan to petitioner in 1991
38(...continued)
alleged $3,000 loan from Mr. Averbach. We infer from peti-
tioner’s failure to call Mr. Averbach and to elicit any such
testimony from Mr. Vulis that their testimony would not have been
favorable to petitioner’s position with respect to that alleged
loan. We infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any credible
documentary evidence regarding the alleged $3,000 loan from Mr.
Averbach that any such evidence does not exist and that, if any
such evidence does exist, it would not have substantiated peti-
tioner’s position regarding the alleged $3,000 loan from Mr.
Averbach.
39On brief, respondent raises a question as to how Mr.
Syelsky could have issued a $20,000 check to petitioner in
December 1992, since during that month Mr. Syelsky was involved
in bankruptcy proceedings that he had commenced earlier during
1992 and had represented to the Bankruptcy Court on Sept. 15,
1992, that he had only $100 in assets. However, the parties
stipulated that Mr. Syelsky gave petitioner his $20,000 check
that was used to make the Dec. 15, 1992 deposit at issue. To the
extent that respondent is arguing that we should disregard that
stipulation, we decline to do so because we do not find it to be
clearly contrary to the facts that we have found are established
by the record. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93
T.C. at 195.
Page: Previous 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011