- 42 -
support of petitioners’ contention that Mr. Whitehead’s use of
certain Burien Nissan automobiles during the test period was
representative of Mr. Whitehead’s use of those automobiles
throughout the years at issue, petitioners rely on Mr. White-
head’s self-serving testimony. Based on the Court’s evaluation
of Mr. Whitehead’s testimony, we are not required to, and we
shall not, rely on his testimony regarding his use of certain
Burien Nissan automobiles during the years at issue. See Lerch
v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-
690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159;
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).34 On the record
before us, we find that petitioners have failed to meet the
requirements of the sampling method of substantiation. On that
record, we further find that petitioners have failed otherwise to
33(...continued)
the business purpose of any miles allegedly driven by Mr. White-
head during the test period. We further find on that record that
petitioners have failed to show that the alleged business purpose
of any miles allegedly driven by Mr. Whitehead during the test
period is evident from the surrounding facts and circumstances.
In this connection, no credible evidence in the record estab-
lishes the facts and circumstances during the years at issue
surrounding Mr. Whitehead’s claimed business uses of certain
Burien Nissan automobiles during those years.
34The principle that we are not required to rely on testi-
mony, even if uncontradicted, that we find to be, inter alia, not
credible, questionable, unreasonable, general, and/or vague is so
well established that hereinafter we shall not cite the case law
supporting that principle.
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011