Joseph F. and Caroline Enos - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
         petitioners alleged that a number of MMI’s checks to them were               
         not honored by MMI’s banks.  Petitioners’ records reflect that               
         petitioners received over $800,000 from MMI after respondent                 
         issued MMI the August 15, 1978, notice of levy, of which                     
         approximately $210,000 was received on or after December 15,                 
         1978.  Petitioners contend that these payments were “partial                 
         advance payments to petitioners for assurance of future shipments            
         of scrap metal.”                                                             
              Several payment invoices from MMI to petitioners for invoice            
         Nos. 37, 47, 306, and 419 refer to payments for deliveries that              
         occurred between February and July 1977.  According to                       
         petitioners’ business ledger, which begins in August 1977, the               
         first payments on invoice Nos. 37, 47, 306, and 419 began only               
         after the August 15, 1978, notice of levy was issued to MMI.  The            
         payment invoices also provide check numbers for the payments made            
         to petitioners, and those numbers are reported in the “detail”               
         column of petitioners’ business ledger.  We note that, after                 
         August 15, 1978, many payments to petitioners reflected in the               
         accounts receivable ledger bear no check numbers.                            
              Petitioners have not provided us with any other business                
         records or invoices, such as payment slips showing that the                  
         payments from MMI were from post-levy dealings with MMI, which               
         might have substantiated their claim that the payments were for              
         “partial advance payments”, and that those “partial advance                  






Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011