- 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