Bradley M. Cohen and Kathy A. Cohen - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          was actually deposited into their accounts and that the remaining           
          $20,000 was used to “pay expenses”.                                         
               An alleged loan agreement between petitioner and his father            
          was presented at trial but was not received into evidence because           
          petitioners had failed to comply with the Court’s standing                  
          pretrial order concerning exchange of documents.  The late                  
          production of the document prejudiced respondent’s ability to               
          test its authenticity.  In any event, there was no reliable                 
          evidence of funds actually transferred to petitioner from his               
          father.  Petitioners failed to file a trial memorandum required             
          by the Court’s standing pretrial order, but at the calendar call            
          petitioners’ counsel represented to the Court that petitioner’s             
          mother would be a witness.  She was never called to testify,                
          leaving petitioner’s testimony uncorroborated.  The                         
          uncorroborated testimony offered by petitioner lacks credibility            
          and contradicts the stipulations, and we decline to accept                  
          petitioners’ belated explanation as proof of nontaxable deposits.           
          See, e.g., Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 76-77.                      
               Petitioner testified at trial that about $27,000 of NHIL’s             
          receipts were deposits from customer accounts that were later               
          refunded or returned to the customers.  Petitioners failed to               
          provide any documentation of these refunds until the day before             
          trial occurred and have not shown that they represented items               
          included in their reported receipts.  Petitioners also failed to            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011