- 3 -
FINDINGS OF FACT3
Some facts were stipulated. We incorporate herein by this
reference the parties’ stipulation of facts and the exhibits
submitted therewith. We find the stipulated facts accordingly.
Petitioner is a C corporation that timely filed Federal income
tax returns for the subject years.
Background
Petitioner retails gasoline and related products
(collectively, gasoline) and home heating oil in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire. Petitioner sells its gasoline and home
heating oil only for cash, and its service stations (stations)
only sell gasoline. Petitioner’s stations all display the name
“Haffner’s” and operate under the name Haffner’s Service
Stations, Inc.
3 During trial, petitioner elicited testimony from its
accountants (Seymour Rubin (Rubin) and George Goertz (Goertz))
and some of its faithful (to the Haffner/Fournier family),
longtime employees (Peggy Willett (Willett), Mary Osgood
(Osgood), Roland Beauchesne (Beauchesne), and E. Haffner Fournier
(Haff)). We find unreliable much of the testimony of Rubin,
Willett, Osgood, and Haff. We find much of their testimony to be
vague and uncorroborated. We also find some of the testimony of
Haff to be inconsistent with and/or contrary to the documentary
evidence. Under the circumstances, we are not required to, and
we do not, rely on the unreliable testimony of Rubin, Willett,
Osgood, and Haff to support petitioner’s positions herein. See
Brookfield Wire Co. v. Commissioner, 667 F.2d 551, 552 (1st Cir.
1981), affg. T.C. Memo. 1980-321; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87
T.C. 74, 77 (1986). See also Kenney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-431, where the Court declined to rely upon most of the
testimony of the taxpayer and a long list of relatives and close
friends who testified in support of her claim of innocent spouse
relief.
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