Zabetti A. Pappas - Page 35




                                       - 35 -                                         
               In 1989, petitioner deposited a check payable to Real                  
          Services from Douglas B. for $400.  During 1990, petitioner                 
          deposited into her Chemical Bank accounts two checks to cash                
          totaling $225 from Jerrold M., a check to cash for $200 from                
          William C., and two checks payable to cash totaling $140 from               
          Takero O.  Petitioner claims that the $400 check from Douglas B.            
          represents repayment of a loan.  She argues that she got two                
          checks from Jerrold M. for helping him to find his girlfriend.              
          She claims not to know William C. and that she got his $200 check           
          from a third party for room rental.  She says the two checks                
          totaling $140 from Takero O., plus $10 cash, were payment for               
          tickets to a Broadway show.  We do not accept her self-serving              
          testimony.  See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).            
          To the contrary, in light of the other substantial evidence that            
          petitioner was in the business of providing escort services for             
          compensation during 1989 and 1990, her deposit of checks made out           
          to Real Services or to cash from Douglas B., Jerrold M., William            
          C., and Takero O. is sufficient, we conclude, to support the                
          finding that these six checks were payments to her for the                  
          provision of escort services.  On the other hand, these                     
          individuals did not testify, and there is no evidence in the                
          record that petitioner had any specific items of income from                
          these individuals beyond the amounts evidenced by the checks.  We           
          accordingly hold that petitioner had unreported escort income in            






Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011