- 11 -
and T.C. Memo. 1992-616; Banks v. Commissioner, 322 F.2d 530, 537
(8th Cir. 1963), affg. in part and remanding in part on another
ground T.C. Memo. 1961-237.
Petitioner’s testimony was implausible. She was not
consistent in explaining how she allegedly deposited and repaid
photo shop funds. She testified about only one instance in which
she repaid the photo shop. Describing that instance, she
testified that she repaid the photo shop with a $2,000 check that
was paid on March 24, 1993. However, that check was paid to
American Express rather than to the photo shop. The record
contains no checks written by petitioner to the photo store.4
Petitioner contends for the first time in her answering
brief that the payments and transfers to credit card and bank
card companies that correspond to her large deposits were for the
photo store because the charges on those cards were for photo
store expenses. She contends that the photo store gave her the
money that she deposited in her accounts to pay those bank and
credit card bills. Petitioner’s statement in her answering brief
is not evidence; we can base our findings only on properly
admitted evidence. Sec. 7453; Rule 143; Kronish v. Commissioner,
90 T.C. 684, 695-696 (1988); United States v. State of
4 Even if there were checks written to petitioner that she
cashed for the photo store, the result would not change because
respondent did not include in the bank deposits analysis any
deposits for which there were corresponding checks to petitioner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011