- 22 -
her which of the Sley Corporations would pay for the charges on a
particular invoice. If Baybrook had a question as to which of
the Sley Corporations would pay for a particular charge, then
Baybrook asked petitioner. Baybrook prepared the check, attached
the invoice to the check, and returned the invoice with the
attached check to petitioner for his final review. Petitioner
closely reviewed the checks that Baybrook prepared against each
invoice; he also reviewed each transaction on each invoice.
Baybrook categorized these charges as “TRAVEL/TRANSPORTATION”
expenses on Markette’s books and records. Petitioner never told
Baybrook that a travel expense was personal, as opposed to
business, and thus was not to be paid by the Sley Corporations.
At one time, when Baybrook was going to Orlando, Florida, for
personal purposes, petitioner asked Baybrook to check on the
health of two people who were receiving checks from Harry’s
estate. Petitioner arranged for Baybrook to be paid $200 by the
Sley Corporations, which was payment for her time and the
expenses she incurred while doing work for Harry’s estate5 while
in Florida, not the cost of her entire trip to Florida.
Baybrook prepared Sley Corporations’ payroll checks to be
paid to Beatrice, Betsy, and Ben. Petitioner told Baybrook the
5 Petitioner’s proposed finding 318 states that this work
was for Markette. Respondent did not object to this proposed
finding. Nevertheless, Baybrook’s detailed testimony, on which
petitioner’s proposed finding was based, makes it clear that the
work was done for Harry’s estate, and we have so found.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011