- 26 -
Mr. Doorn and the Europeans. Mr. Ford admitted under oath and
while represented by counsel that petitioners have no documents
or other evidence to support these assertions. He attempted to
rationalize this lack of records by saying that “it was family.
It was informal”.
Contrary to Mr. Ford’s testimony, the evidence shows a
consistent pattern of ownership and control of these funds by
both petitioners as discussed above. At trial, Mr. Ford
testified that he received at least a few hundred thousand
dollars, and perhaps as much as a million dollars, in purported
“loans” from the Canadian accounts, which he admittedly never
repaid. He also testified that there was never an accounting
between petitioners and Mr. Doorn. Petitioners did not call Mr.
Doorn, Marc Ford, or any of their accountants as witnesses. It
is well established that the failure of one party to introduce
evidence within his or her possession leads to the inference that
the information if produced would be favorable to the opposing
party. Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C.
1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947); see also
McKay v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 1063, 1069 (1987) (failure of
witness to testify to fact peculiarly within his knowledge
suggests that testimony would have been unfavorable), affd. 886
F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1989). On the basis of this evidence and his
lack of credibility while testifying, the Court is not persuaded
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011