- 12 -
oral testimony. We must be wary, on the one hand, of the
courtroom's becoming a quagmire in which an honest litigant is
mired and, on the other hand, of the courtroom’s becoming a
refuge for the proficient liar. See Diaz v. Commissioner,
58 T.C. 560, 564 (1972); Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1993-517, affd. without published opinion 66 F.3d 325 (6th Cir.
1995). We have evaluated each referenced witness’s testimony by
observing his or her candor, sincerity, and demeanor and by
assigning weight to the elicited testimony for the primary
purpose of finding disputed facts. See Neonatology Associates v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43, 84 (2000), affd. 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir.
2002). We determine the credibility of each witness, weigh each
piece of evidence, draw appropriate inferences, and choose
between conflicting inferences in finding the facts of a case.
See id.; see also Gallick v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 372 U.S. 108,
114-115 (1963); Boehm v. Commissioner, 326 U.S. 287, 293 (1945);
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Helvering, 316 U.S. 164, 167-168 (1942).
We hear and view the testimony of respondent’s three
witnesses to be more credible than that of petitioner’s six
witnesses, whom we find to be not credible. Our perception of
petitioner’s six witnesses (and our resulting disregard of their
testimony) is supported by our review of independent indicia of
reliability found in the record and from the reasonable
inferences that we draw therefrom. First, Clausing, the security
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011