- 15 -
financing used in this case were means of ensuring that Sav-Fuel
would generate artificially inflated tax benefits while at the
same time virtually assuring that it would never repay the note
in full. This leads to the logical conclusion that the EMS-
related activity was entered into primarily or solely for tax
benefits, and not with the dominant or primary objective of
making a profit.
B. Actions and Expertise of Promoters and General Partner
of Sav-Fuel
The promoters of Sav-Fuel were Messrs. Frost, Dworsky, and
Gangel and the corporations Nisona and Dard. Mr. Frost, who is
deceased, was also the general partner of Sav-Fuel. Mr. Dworsky
was the president and sole shareholder of CEF, the company
responsible for maintaining and managing the EMS.
Neither Mr. Dworsky nor Mr. Gangel nor any representatives
of Dard or Nisona testified at trial to explain the purpose of
the EMS-related activity of Sav-Fuel. We have previously noted
that the failure to introduce the testimony of available
witnesses who purportedly possess knowledge about certain
relevant facts provides a sufficient basis to infer that the
testimony of those witnesses would not have been favorable. See,
e.g., 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); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.
1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947); Medlin v.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011