- 27 -
same.” See also United States v. Tauferner, 407 F.2d 243 (10th
Cir. 1969); Smith v. Warren, 388 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1968);
Bunevith v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 837 (1969), affd. without
published opinion 25 AFTR 2d 935, 70-1 USTC par. 9414 (1st Cir.
1970).
Petitioner offered conflicting testimony at trial as to
whether his airplane was used for commuting. At one point, he
testified: “I do go from the home office to the airport for
transportation by plane to Burbank where my other office is and
have a car at the airport in Burbank to link up with that airport
and my office there.” He then attempted to change this
testimony: “I usually leave on a Friday afternoon from the
medical office in Fresno and go to the Burbank office. It’s
mainly office to office commuting.”
After trial, petitioner attempted to clarify his testimony
with a self-serving hearsay declaration submitted with his reply
brief. Petitioner states in the declaration that he never
travels directly from his home to Burbank but instead always
leaves from his Fresno office. We decline to consider
petitioner’s declaration submitted after trial. The statements
are hearsay and untimely, and we do not find the statements in
the declaration to be credible in light of petitioner’s
spontaneous trial testimony.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011