- 23 -
referring to the money as theirs, and later handled liquidation
of the account by “initiat[ing] the movement of the money from
Valdes & Moreno, Inc. to Wells Fargo where the money still is,
via some mere stops along the way at some Florida banks.”
Attempted review of these alleged circumstances, however,
highlights a key problem with the record in this case. The noted
details are drawn largely from uncorroborated testimony of
Mr. Greene, whose testimony in general the Court finds to be
singularly lacking in credibility. We have before us testimony
by Mr. Greene taken in three contexts; i.e., his deposition from
October of 2004 in the Florida probate litigation, his statements
on direct examination at the trial of this Tax Court case as a
witness for respondent, and his responses on cross-examination by
counsel for the estate. Comparison reveals that Mr. Greene’s
overall position in the probate litigation is essentially the
opposite of his stance as a witness for respondent.
His deposition testimony is geared towards emphasizing his
involvement in all that relates to the eConnect shares, so as to
challenge the will being probated and to establish an interest in
decedent’s property. In this Court, his comments are shaded
towards distancing himself from any interest in the stock and
concomitant taxable gain. The result is two inconsistent
presentations, with the intersection between the two represented
by unconvincing attempts on cross-examination to explain apparent
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011