- 15 -
authorized access to the safety deposit boxes that contained the
cashier's checks.
Although respondent's determinations are presumed to be
correct, we think petitioners have sufficiently rebutted that
presumption with regard to this issue. Petitioner's handling of
the funds used to purchase the cashier's checks and his
subsequent control of those cashier's checks is indeed
unconventional. But it is nonetheless consistent with the
partnership agreement. Furthermore, this unorthodox management
of financial assets is consistent with testimony provided by both
petitioner and Carlton. Carlton, perhaps naively, consented to
petitioner's control of the money which he used to purchase the
cashier's checks. Moreover, although he was uncertain of the
amount invested in cashier's checks, Carlton testified that he
knew the cashier's checks existed. Additionally, Carlton
testified that petitioner would inform him of his plans to
purchase additional cashier's checks prior to purchasing them.
When the evidence is considered in the aggregate, the
outcome is unfavorable to respondent. Petitioners have presented
corroborated and uncontradicted testimony that necessitates a
conclusion that petitioner did not embezzle funds from Fruitland.
Carlton's testimony is the most compelling evidence in this
regard. If this Court were to sustain respondent's
determination, it would be necessary for us to conclude that the
victim of respondent's embezzlement theory committed perjury when
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011