13
numerous oral and written requests during the audit process, in
which he produced the bank notes and the guaranty agreement with
Don Test, petitioner did not produce the alleged notes between
himself and DRPC until after the statutory notice of deficiency
had been issued.
DRPC did not make any "loan" repayments to petitioner, and
petitioner did not report any interest income with regard to the
alleged notes. Petitioner argues that any interest, principal,
or guaranty fees were made "on the account of" petitioner, were
for his benefit, and were recorded as a decrease in the amount of
indebtedness of the corporation to petitioner. He argues that
any interest due to him from the corporation was treated as an
increase in the amount owed to him based on the notes from DRPC
to him. He asserts that the interest charged by the bank was not
the same as that charged by him to DRPC, and the difference
between the two interest amounts "represent[s] the guaranty fees,
interest, and principal paid by petitioner". We have no evidence
of any accounting whatsoever as to interest paid or owed by DRPC
to petitioner. In evidence is one computer printout of the
general account of DRPC. Petitioner may have derived these
figures from the register, but he has failed to prove to this
Court how he accounted for any separate debt between DRPC and
himself.
On its returns, DRPC reflected notes as payable to Frost
Bank, not petitioner, despite the fact that it had listed other
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011