- 88 -
make the May 25, 1993 deposit at issue was from East-West and
that those funds represented a gross receipt of MZ Trading. In
support of his contentions, petitioner relies on his self-serving
testimony and Mr. Guterman’s testimony. We are not required to,
and we shall not, rely on petitioner’s testimony regarding the
May 25, 1993 deposit at issue.41 Based on the Court’s evaluation
of Mr. Guterman’s testimony, we are not required to, and we shall
not, rely on his testimony with respect to that deposit. On the
record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his
burden of establishing that the May 25, 1993 deposit at issue
represented either a personal loan from Mr. Kirdan or a gross
receipt of MZ Trading that it reported in its Form 1065 for 1993.
Alleged Business Loans to UVW
Petitioner contends that, of the following total deposits,
including total payments against the balance due on petitioner’s
equity line account, and total cash that he received in connec-
tion with three of those deposits, the amounts set forth below
represented business loans to him:
41Petitioner failed to call Mr. Kirdan as a witness. We
infer from petitioner’s failure to call Mr. Kirdan that his
testimony would not have been favorable to petitioner’s position
regarding the May 25, 1993 deposit at issue. Petitioner also
failed to offer into evidence any credible documentary evidence
to establish that the May 25, 1993 deposit represented either a
personal loan to petitioner from Mr. Kirdan to purchase elec-
tronic equipment or a gross receipt of MZ Trading. We infer from
petitioner’s failure to proffer any such documentary evidence
that any such evidence does not exist and that, if it does exist,
it would not have substantiated either of petitioner’s inconsis-
tent positions with respect to that deposit.
Page: Previous 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011