Barry B. Bealor and Nancy L. Bealor, et al. - Page 33

                                       - 120 -                                        
               On February 26, 1983, the New Jersey Department of Labor               
          pointed out another mistake.  It wrote to "William Bryen and                
          Bruce Bryen, t/a MIT 83", advising that Machise, not MIT 83, was            
          listed as the insured on the Standard Workmen's Compensation and            
          Employer's Liability Insurance policy for the period July 1,                
          1983, through July 1, 1984.                                                 
               Moreover, the $2,148,764 asserted to be owing by Machise to            
          MIT 83 in the Termination Agreement is an error; the amount that            
          should have appeared in the termination agreement was $2,135,260.           
               After the 1985 payroll costs were paid, MIT 85 billed                  
          Machise for 120 percent of the their total amount, as the                   
          "compensation fee."  It should have billed MPC.                             
               With respect to MIT 86, Fred prepared a note in payment of             
          the compensation fee.  The amount of $585,511 appearing on the              
          note was incorrect and should have been $588,511.  The                      
          transaction was recorded on the books of MIT 86 and MPC in the              
          amount of $588,511.                                                         
               Finally, with respect to W & A, the employee leasing                   
          agreement required W & A to deposit $3 million with BBPA.  The $3           
          million figure was wrong; it should have been $4 million as the             
          entire capitalization of W & A.  Additionally, Fred terminated              
          the existence of W & A itself as a "mutual mistake", when he                
          realized that his interpretation of section 469 had been ill-               
          founded.                                                                    
              The significance of petitioners' failure to adhere to their            




Page:  Previous  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  120  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  128  129  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011