- 27 -
Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108 (1966), affd. 392 F.2d
409 (5th Cir. 1968), and Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.
Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th
Cir. 1947), to the effect that the failure of a party to offer
available testimony gives rise to the inference that it would
have been unfavorable to his contention. Accordingly, we review
Becker’s testimony in the Jaroff case below and consider the
extent of his expertise and the likelihood that he gave special
assurances or guaranties to petitioner.
Becker had no education, special qualifications, or
professional skills in plastics engineering, plastics recycling,
or plastics materials. In evaluating the Plastics Recycling
transactions and organizing the SAB recycling partnerships,
Becker supposedly relied upon: (1) The memorandum and the
accompanying materials; (2) a tour of the PI facility in Hyannis;
(3) discussions with insiders to the transactions; (4) Michael
Canno (Canno), a client of Becker Co.; and (5) his investigation
of the reputation and background of PI and persons involved in
the transactions.
10(...continued)
MR. RIZEK: We are not calling Mr. Becker. We don’t
think it’s necessary, Your Honor. I don’t think
there’s going to be any doubt at the conclusion of the
evidence that’s presented here that these Petitioners
had fairly long standing relationships independent of
this particular transaction with Mr. Becker.
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