- 33 -
or statements issued by the taxing authority. The
documentary evidence petitioner introduced supports a
finding that petitioner made payments to his clients, to
the Internal Revenue Service, and to various State tax
administrators. However, the documentary evidence does not
explain why the payments were made, what connection any of
the payments had to petitioner's Schedule C business, or
why these payments are ordinary and necessary business
expenses. For this, petitioner relies upon his own
uncorroborated testimony at trial. As we have often
stated, we are not required to accept a taxpayer's
self-serving testimony. See, e.g., Neidringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992); Tokarski
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Hradesky v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per curiam
540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).
We have difficulty accepting petitioner's testimony
that he made 27 payments totaling $59,674.83 (i.e., total
direct payments of $113,317.83 less the amount allowed by
respondent, $53,643) in 1989 and 18 payments totaling
$81,669.93 in 1990 to settle malpractice claims with 17
clients. Petitioner claims to have made these payments,
but he failed to produce documents of any kind, such as
agreements, correspondence, or memoranda, to substantiate
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011