- 21 -
which, if true, would be favorable to him, gives rise
to the presumption that if produced it would be
unfavorable. This is especially true where * * * the
party failing to produce the evidence has the burden of
proof or the other party to the proceeding has
established a prima facie case. * * *
Also, the failure to present the testimony of available
witnesses, who purportedly possess knowledge about certain
relevant facts, provides sufficient basis to infer that the
testimony of those witnesses would not have been favorable.
Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 691 (1989); Pollack v.
Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108 (1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th
Cir. 1968).
We are not required to accept incredible, implausible, or
biased testimony. Fleischer v. Commissioner, 403 F.2d 403, 406
(2d Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-85; Parks v. Commissioner,
supra at 659; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
I. Items of Income Determined by Respondent
Respondent prepared on brief a reconciliation of items which
are “in dispute” and concessions as to the adjustments in the
statutory notice of deficiency. Appendix C of this opinion
reflects the reconciliation schedules that respondent prepared
and which petitioner stipulated in his answering brief. We
discuss below those items of income that the parties represented
were still in dispute. However, we point out that petitioner
does not contest on brief many of those items. Instead, he
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011