- 115 -
Nonetheless, we have found as facts from our examination of
the entire record in these cases that, prior to and during the
years at issue, petitioner and Mme. Koo had close and amicable
business and family relationships. We have also found as facts
82(...continued)
ing examples. To support her control contention with respect to
Pioneer, respondent essentially relies on the testimony of Henry
Gaw, petitioner's brother, concerning two conversations that he
had with petitioner in 1980. In the first conversation, peti-
tioner informed Henry Gaw that he owned as much stock in Pioneer
as his father did, which Henry Gaw understood to be between 19
and 25 percent. In the second conversation, petitioner informed
Henry Gaw that he had purchased from Mme. Koo an additional
amount of stock that, combined with the stock he already owned,
gave him a controlling interest in Pioneer (although Henry Gaw
could not recall whether petitioner specified the percentage of
Pioneer's stock that petitioner informed him he owned). While we
have no reason to doubt Henry Gaw's credibility, we do not find
that that testimony, standing alone, establishes respondent's
allegation that petitioner owned a controlling interest in
Pioneer during the years at issue.
To support his control contention with respect to Double
Wealth and Forward, petitioner relies on his testimony that Mme.
Koo owned those corporations. Petitioner did not testify that
Mme. Koo was the only owner of those corporations or that Mme.
Koo owned a controlling interest in them. We found petitioner's
testimony about Mme. Koo's ownership of Double Wealth and Forward
vague and conclusory, and, for the reasons discussed above and
based on our observation of his demeanor at trial, we generally
did not find him to be credible. Petitioner also relies to
support his control contention on certain instruments of transfer
purporting to effect the issuance or transfer to Mme. Koo of one
share of the stock of Double Wealth and of Forward and a stock
certificate of Forward purporting to certify ownership by her of
one share of the stock of that corporation. Although we have not
admitted those documents into evidence because of respondent's
hearsay objections, even if we had made them part of the record
in these cases, they would not in any event have been conclusive
with respect to petitioner's allegation that Mme. Koo owned a
controlling interest in Double Wealth and in Forward. This is
because, inter alia, petitioner has not shown the total number of
authorized shares of stock of each such corporation that was
issued and outstanding during the years at issue. See second
paragraph supra note 50.
Page: Previous 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011