- 18 -
authorization. The same is true for those WAs that specifically
direct payments to or simply refer to a particular server or
other person, and those that list specific food items, which in
all cases, were for negligible amounts ($14 or less). (On brief,
petitioner characterized the latter as providing free meals to
customers.) Nor do we infer from petitioner’s failure to obtain
corroborating testimony from former club employees or dancers
that such testimony would have been negative. The events in
question occurred some 12 to 13 years prior to the trial.
Presumably, the employees (e.g., bartenders and waiters) and the
dancers, most of whom petitioner may not have known by name,
would have been difficult or impossible to locate after so many
years. Moreover, in light of the corroboration afforded by the
WAs themselves, we do not consider such testimony crucial to
petitioner’s case. Cf. Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108
(1966) (unexplained absence of crucial witness justified
inference that his testimony would have been unfavorable), affd.
392 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1968).
Those WAs listing amounts as having been “paid out” or, in
one case, “paid out to [petitioner]” do not corroborate
petitioner’s oral testimony. Although it is possible that the
notation “paid out” was written by an individual who had carried
out petitioner’s instruction to give the authorized amount to
Helmle or to some other person for distribution to dancers, we
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011