- 12 -
2. Petitioner’s Testimony Does Not Substantiate the
Claimed NOLs
Petitioner relies on his own testimony to substantiate the
claimed NOLs. 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. See 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, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986).
Petitioner’s testimony was vague and unclear as to how the
loan proceeds contributed to improvements on the properties.
Indeed, petitioners did not object to respondent’s proposed
finding of fact which stated that petitioner “collected the rents
on the Irvine Business Center Property and kept the money for
himself instead of paying the bank on the loan.” Petitioner’s
testimony did not establish whether the loans incurred were
recourse or nonrecourse. Petitioners offered no testimony or
evidence as to depreciation claimed or deducted or “allowed and
allowable” on the properties.
Furthermore, petitioners offered no explanation regarding
how their adjusted gross income corresponded with losses incurred
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011