- 9 -
supporters over a number of years, as having a small interest in
“Phase I”, as having invested a substantial sum of cash, and as
Co-Managing General Partner of Manila Exploration Co. - Eldridge,
Ltd. (USA). Thus, the money wired from the Manila Accounts to
the Philippines appears to represent the substantial sums of cash
that the Project Update states petitioner invested in the Manila
projects.
We note that neither Mr. Haynes nor any of the alleged
investors in the Manila projects were called as witnesses.6 We
infer that their testimony would not have been favorable to
petitioner. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6
T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
6 At trial and on brief, petitioner repeatedly argued that
petitioner and respondent had an agreement to stipulate three
affidavits--including an affidavit of Mr. Haynes--that the Court
did not receive into evidence after sustaining respondent’s
hearsay objections. Petitioner claims respondent “duped”
petitioner into not having his witnesses at trial.
At trial, the Court asked respondent: “Did you all have an
agreement that you all would stipulate to those affidavits?”
Petitioner claims that respondent gave a carefully crafted answer
to avoid directly answering this question. Respondent, however,
replied, “At no time was there ever an agreement.”
In addition to offering hearsay, at trial petitioner stated
that he had a witness waiting for a call from the Court so that
the witness could “testify” via speaker phone.
Petitioner was a trial attorney. Petitioner has been an
attorney for almost 30 years. Petitioner stated, that as an
attorney, he knew that the affidavits were not admissible in
evidence and he should have known better. At trial, petitioner
stated that he had a “lame excuse” for failing to get his
witnesses to the trial. We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011