- 21 -
Petitioners never introduced the CFT certificates of beneficial
interest or any minutes of trustee meetings purporting to show
that certificates were issued to parties other than petitioner
or, even more importantly, to show the identity of the person or
persons who had possession of the certificates.11 We are not
required to accept petitioner’s self-serving testimony as
evidence, particularly in the absence of corroborating evidence,
and we decline to do so in this case. See Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Peterman v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1993-129. Statements in a brief that are not
supported by testimony or documents introduced at trial are not
evidence. See Rule 143(b); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.
202, 214 n.7 (1992); Viehweg v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 1248, 1255
(1988).
Even if the Castros’ children, the Castro Holding Co., and
Good Samaritan held beneficial interests in the CFT, as
petitioners contend, petitioners failed to prove that any genuine
economic interest passed to them. The trustees had absolute
discretion to distribute principal and interest at any time and
in any way they saw fit. The trustees could modify the
declarations of trust and could even decide to terminate the
trusts early or to extend the trusts beyond the specified term.
See Markosian v. Commissioner, supra at 1244.
11According to the CFT’s declaration of trust, the
certificates of beneficial interest are owned by the person who
is in possession of them.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011