- 29 -
payments” do not relate to payments on pre-levy liabilities MMI
owed petitioners. Petitioners’ business ledger shows when
certain payments were made and when certain amounts were debited
from the balance owed by MMI, but the business ledger does not
indicate when the underlying transaction occurred.
Moreover, the notice of determination raised the issue that
petitioners received a large amount of money from MMI after the
August 15, 1978, notice of levy, and petitioners have failed to
rebut that claim or substantiate with credible evidence their
claim that the payments petitioners received from MMI after
August 15, 1978, were for “partial advance payments”.
Accordingly, petitioners have failed to carry the burden of proof
on the issue. See Rule 142(a).
Petitioners’ contention that payments made after August 15,
1978, were “partial advance payments” is contrary to the record
in the instant case, and contrary to Mr. Enos’s explanation
during his 1991 deposition that the payments from MMI to
petitioners represented amounts that were “over and above the
levy”.12 We are especially doubtful of petitioners’ claims in
12During the deposition, Mr. Enos stated:
A. To make it in its simplest form, if we’re owed, say,
$400,000, and you levied $300,000, that account was
over there to pay you off $300,000 and the other
hundred thousand was over here. The account was levied
on for whatever the amount was there.
Q. So what you are saying; that when the IRS levied on
(continued...)
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011