- 10 -
the District Director who told petitioner that he had the
authority to accept deliveries for the District Director.
Respondent contends that petitioner’s testimony is not
credible. We disagree. We decide whether a witness is credible
on the basis of objective facts, the reasonableness of the
testimony, and the demeanor of the witness. Quock Ting v. United
States, 140 U.S. 417, 420-421 (1891); Wood v. Commissioner, 338
F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964); Pinder
v. United States, 330 F.2d 119, 124-125 (5th Cir. 1964); Concord
Consumers Hous. Coop. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 105, 124 n.21
(1987). Petitioner consistently and repeatedly described the
steps he took to deliver the photocopied returns with original
signatures.
A Philadelphia Service Center stamp “IRS Received from
District 052197” appears on the front page of each photocopied
return with original signature for the years in issue.
Petitioner contends that the stamp shows that the Baltimore
District Director received the photocopied returns for the years
in issue and sent them to the Philadelphia Service Center, which
received the returns on May 21, 1997. Respondent offered no
explanation of the stamp, and no argument to the contrary. The
stamp tends to support petitioner’s claim that he delivered the
photocopied returns with original signatures for the years in
issue to the Baltimore District Director because it apparently
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011