- 51 -
“borrowed”, and there is no evidence that those amounts were
treated as a bona fide obligation or that Dr. Gant attempted to
collect the amounts supposedly borrowed. At best, Dr. Gant’s
testimony indicates that petitioner made draws from Mr. Miles’s
trust account on the sale proceeds received from East Lake Vista
and that those draws caused Dr. Gant to fail to realize the full
extent of what he initially invested. However, those facts do
not establish a loan or otherwise permit petitioner to escape
taxation on his share of the gains from East Lake Vista.
Petitioner also points to respondent’s concession that
petitioner owned only a 50-percent interest in the Mefford
Property, and he argues that this concession supports the
credibility of petitioner’s and Dr. Gant’s testimony with respect
to East Lake Vista. We disagree. The record contains numerous
concessions by both petitioner and respondent, and we are not
inclined to speculate as to the basis for those concessions. In
any event, respondent notes that he conceded one-half of the
deficiency with respect to the Mefford Property, because there
was contemporaneous documentary evidence to support Dr. Gant’s
testimony. Respondent contends, and we agree, that Dr. Gant’s
testimony lacks such support with respect to East Lake Vista.
Further, respondent’s position after concession with respect to
the Mefford Property would now appear consistent with the
position he has taken with respect to East Lake Vista, that
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011