- 7 -
review the Commissioner’s determination for abuse of discretion.
Sego v. Commissioner, supra at 610.
Petitioner’s sole claim is that the penalty and interest for
1995 were supposed to be paid or should have been paid out of the
seized funds. Petitioner’s claim is without merit.
The plea agreement is clear: the seized funds could be used
to pay the tax deficiency for 1995, but petitioner agreed that
the seized funds would not be used to pay his penalties or
interest for 1995. Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles B. Burch, who
prosecuted petitioner, credibly testified that the Government
agreed to pay petitioner’s 1995 tax deficiency out of the seized
funds as the sole amount to be paid out of the seized funds
toward petitioner’s tax obligation for 1995. Mr. Burch further
testified that the Government never agreed to write off the
penalties and interest or pay the penalties and interest out of
the seized funds.
Petitioner’s testimony and claims to the contrary are not
credible. The Court is not required to accept petitioner’s
unsubstantiated, self-interested, and questionable testimony.
See Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964),
affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964); Archer v. Commissioner, 227 F.2d 270,
273 (5th Cir. 1955), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011