-16-
(8th Cir. 1955), affg. in part and vacating in part a Memorandum
Opinion of this Court), affg. T.C. Memo. 2003-212.
We have carefully reviewed the testimony and exhibits the
estate offered. The two witnesses the estate called were Mrs.
Erickson’s daughters. Both were partners in the Partnership, and
one was on all sides of the formation transaction. Karen signed
the limited partnership agreement several times in her multiple
capacities. While we acknowledge much of the daughters’
testimony was uncontradicted, we find their testimony,
particularly regarding the rationale for the Partnership and the
timelines of the transfers, to be self-serving and, more
importantly, not credible. Neither are we required to nor do we
accept self-serving testimony we find to be not credible. We
find the daughters’ testimony represents an after-the-fact
rationalization rather than a candid recollection of the facts
and circumstances surrounding the transactions at issue. We
therefore find that the evidence the estate introduced is not
credible.
Accordingly, we conclude that the estate has not met the
requirements of section 7491 because the estate has not
introduced credible evidence. We therefore shall deny the
estate’s oral motion to shift the burden of proof under section
7491.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007