- 6 -
receipts allegedly signed by Julio Guzman for the monthly rent
payments. Once again, the alleged evidence produced by
petitioner is self-serving, uncorroborated, and unauthenticated.
All the rent receipts appear to have been prepared and signed at
the same time. Neither Julio Guzman nor his wife appeared at
trial to verify that they received monthly rent payments from
petitioner. The supposed receipts on their face are not
credible. Petitioner has failed to present persuasive evidence
about Julio Guzman’s earnings or wealth. Petitioner selected the
place of trial, and there is no apparent reason why he did not
arrange for Julio Guzman to appear and testify about the alleged
receipts, the layout of his home, and other matters concerning
the head of household issue. The failure of a party to offer
available testimony gives rise to the inference that it would
have been unfavorable to his contentions. Bresler v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 182, 188 (1975); 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). Under the
circumstances of this case, we hold that petitioner is not
entitled to head of household filing status.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to the claimed earned income credit. Section 32(a)(1)
provides that an “eligible individual,” subject to certain
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011