Kenneth W. Guthrie - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Cir. 1955), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Weiss v.              
          Commissioner, 221 F.2d 152, 156 (8th Cir. 1955), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1954-51; Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-467.  This is           
          so even when the testimony is uncontroverted if it is improbable,           
          unreasonable, or questionable.  Archer v. Commissioner, supra;              
          Weiss v. Commissioner, supra; see Quock Ting v. United States,              
          140 U.S. 417 (1891).  We found petitioner’s testimony to be                 
          conclusory and/or questionable in certain material respects.                
          Under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to,             
          and generally do not, rely on petitioner’s testimony.  See Lerch            
          v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg.               
          T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-             
          690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159;                  
          Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).                            
               We further note that petitioner did not call the “alleged              
          experts” he allegedly relied upon as witnesses.  We infer that              
          their testimony would not have been favorable to petitioner or              
          that no such experts exist.  Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v.               
          Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th            
          Cir. 1947).                                                                 
               As noted supra, petitioner advanced shopworn arguments                 
          characteristic of tax-protester rhetoric that has been                      
          universally rejected by this and other courts regarding why the             
          wages, interest, and dividends are not income.  Whatever “advice”           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011