- 5 -
incurred or sustained losses regarding Lloyd’s during the years
in issue.
Mr. Swain’s testimony does not support petitioner’s
assertion that he invested money in, or suffered a loss related
to, SJC. Mr. Swain had no personal knowledge regarding whether
(1) the money he received from Mr. Conway originally came from
petitioner, (2) the money was given to Mr. Conway or SJC, or (3)
the money was an investment or a loan. Mr. Swain did not see any
documentation regarding where the money Mr. Conway paid him came
from. Furthermore, Mr. Swain did not testify regarding whether
SJC went bankrupt.
Additionally, we note that Mr. Conway and Mr. Marisco were
not called as witnesses. 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).
We found petitioner’s testimony to be general, vague,
conclusory, and/or questionable in certain material respects.
Under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to,
and generally do not, rely on petitioner’s testimony to sustain
his burden of establishing error in respondent’s determinations.
Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011