- 7 -
sent to his house because he “did not know the implication” of
the forms. Petitioner also testified that he did not know that
the forms he signed were official Government forms because he did
not read or scrutinize them. The Court simply does not accept
petitioner’s self-serving testimony. See Geiger v. Commissioner,
440 F.2d 688, 689 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo.
1969-159; Urban Redev. Corp. v. Commissioner, 294 F.2d 328, 332
(4th Cir. 1961), affg. 34 T.C. 845 (1960).
Petitioner submitted into evidence copies of his bank
statements in an attempt to show that his Social Security
benefits were not reduced because the Social Security
Administration had accepted Mr. Umali’s statements that the
winnings did not belong to petitioner. But petitioner did not
submit any documentation from the Social Security Administration
to corroborate his claim. Moreover, petitioner’s Social Security
benefits fluctuated by as much as $100 from month to month.
Therefore, the Court cannot determine whether his Social Security
benefits were reduced on account of his receipt of the gambling
income.
Additionally, petitioner submitted into evidence copies of
his bank statements in an attempt to show that he did not receive
the gambling income because there were no extreme influxes or
withdrawals of income for the year. But the bank statements do
not shed any light on this issue. The Court cannot make a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007