- 9 - from the sale of a market in Mexico to petitioner’s brother. They further contend that they have complied with the applicable laws and regulations with respect to that sale in Mexico.7 Therefore, according to petitioners, the excess amount in question is not taxable in the United States pursuant to the Treaty, as well as by virtue of sections 871 and 992. Petitioners presented no admissible evidence to support any of their contentions. Their testimony is without merit because it is inconsistent, incoherent, and unreliable. For example, petitioner testified that his brother still owed him in 1998 approximately $130,000 from the purported sale. He also testified that in 1998 he brought from Mexico $175,000, which is a larger amount than what his brother allegedly owed him at that time. Because petitioners claim no other source of the excess amount besides the sale of the market to petitioner’s brother, these two parts of testimony are irreconcilable. Furthermore, if anything, petitioners’ testimony supports the conclusion opposite from their contentions. For instance, although petitioner testified that he paid taxes in Mexico, he also stated that he did not report income from sale of the business to his brother to any authority in Mexico. Whatever legitimate explanation may exist for that fact, it certainly 7 Petitioners state that they owed no taxes on the transaction because they sold the market at its cost.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011