- 17 -
Ms. Sacklow’s firm also did accounting work for Wedgewood. She
would assist Wedgewood’s employees in keeping Wedgewood’s books
and would prepare Wedgewood’s end-of-the-year tax returns. She
testified that the Wedgewood payments were shown as an
indebtedness from Wedgewood to petitioner on Wedgewood’s books
and records. Mr. Levin, who prepared petitioner’s personal
financial statements, which showed Wedgewood as an investment of
petitioner’s, believed “absolutely” that petitioner owned the
shares of Wedgewood individually.
2. Respondent’s Case
Respondent called no witnesses and introduced no exhibits
other than those attached to the stipulation. Besides
respondent’s argument (which we have rejected) that, because of
the Wedgewood payments, petitioner is precluded from claiming
basis in his Wedgewood investment, respondent’s other argument
is, basically, that the testimony of petitioner and his witnesses
is unsupported and, thus, not to be believed.
Petitioner, Mr. Levin, and Ms. Sacklow (the witnesses) all
testified that the Wedgewood payments were made by Culnen &
Hamilton to Wedgewood on petitioner’s behalf. The fact that the
payments were made is beyond question. Indeed, during the trial,
the Court asked counsel for respondent: “Mr. Ianacone, is it a
fact for purposes of this case that those checks [the 46 checks]
* * * were written by Culnen & Hamilton and deposited for the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011