- 36 -
T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202,
212 (1992); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77 (“Under all
the circumstances, we are not required to accept the self-serving
testimony of petitioner”).
Furthermore, we are unable, given the record before us, to
determine which expenses are associated with which business
activity, be it petitioner’s corporations or his unincorporated
businesses. The record unequivocally demonstrates that
petitioner failed to follow and respect business formalities.
Instead, the record evidences the inflows and outflows of
substantial sums of money by and between petitioner and his
related businesses. The books and records of petitioner’s
affiliated corporations and businesses were not offered as
evidence.44
3. Taxable Income and Earnings and Profits
Petitioner argues, for the first time on brief, that
respondent failed to demonstrate that there were sufficient
earnings and profits (E&P) to deem funds that petitioner received
from GMT and Alviso as taxable dividends.45 Additionally,
44For example, the invoices that petitioner submitted in
support of his entitlement to deductions for expenses associated
with his racing business are made to “Alviso”. Without the books
and records of Alviso, it is impossible to determine if these
invoices represent expenses of Alviso, for which deductions have
already been taken.
45“This Court generally will not consider issues that are
(continued...)
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011