- 49 -
(b) Petitioners do not explain the differences between
their contended-for amounts in their opening and answering
briefs.
(c) Sandra testified that her mother typically bought
savings bonds for Rachel and Sean, and that her mother kept the
bonds until well after the years in issue. Clearly, those gifts
(whatever their amounts) would not have been deposited in any of
the listed accounts in 1994 or 1995, or otherwise spent by
petitioners in those years, and so no adjustment should be made
on account of those 1994 gifts or 1995 gifts.
(d) On answering brief, petitioners explain their lack of
evidence on this issue by stating “that Petitioners were
unsuccessful in persuading any of the relatives to attend the
trial as a witness despite numerous efforts.” However, although
petitioners’ witness list includes four close relatives, none of
these relatives was to testify about gifts from them (or from any
other relatives they were aware of) in 1994 or 1995.
Under these circumstances we conclude that the reason
petitioners did not have evidence of additional gifts that were
deposited is that there were not any such additional gifts. We
hold that respondent has established by clear and convincing
evidence the correctness of the table 7 and 8 adjustments on
account of gifts.
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011