- 7 -
In Hernandez I, this Court’s comments about similar
circumstances were as follows:
With respect to amounts of interest received from
the redemption of certificates held in his or Mrs.
Hernandez’ name and those of Vincent or Mildred
Hernandez, respectively, petitioner produced no
evidence that such amounts were not his income other
than a document signed in 1984 by Vincent and Mildred
Hernandez purporting to give petitioner a power of
attorney. Neither Vincent nor Mildred Hernandez
testified at trial. With respect to the remaining
persons whose names appeared on the tax certificates as
alternate payees, petitioner produced no evidence at
all.
Unlike the taxpayer in the “Mexican Lottery Case”,
Diaz v. Commissioner, 58 T.C. 560, 565 (1972), whose
grandmother, “face-to-face with her priest in the
courtroom”, corroborated every word of his testimony
that the lottery tickets in question belonged to his
uncle, petitioner failed to bring a single witness,
neither brother, daughter, nor friend, to the courtroom
to corroborate his story that he was holding these
funds for them. In failing to do so, petitioner did
not carry his burden of proving that these funds
belonged to other taxpayers. * * *
Here the record does not include any purported power of attorney.
Instead, petitioner presented a letter from Vincent Hernandez,
his brother, claiming that the certificates purchased in
Vincent’s name after 1985 were purchased for him. As in
Hernandez I, Vincent Hernandez did not appear to testify about
the letter, and there is no evidence that any of the income in
issue was reported on a tax return by Vincent Hernandez or any of
the other copayees.
There is no question that the income here in issue is
interest income and therefore is includable in gross income under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011