- 7 -
and Mr. Michell. It will be accounted as $4,000
for Mr. Hardtke and $3,000 for Mr. Michell.
The first clause of the March 3, 1987 Agency board minutes quoted
above unequivocally provides that Mr. Hardtke was to earn compen-
sation and that that compensation was to be paid by Agency to
Dinan. Although those minutes further provide that Agency was to
pay Dinan for Mr. Hardtke's services, they do not establish that
a contractual relationship existed during 1987 for Dinan to
provide its services to Agency through its employee, Mr. Hardtke.
Even assuming arguendo that we were to read the second
clause of the March 3, 1987 Agency board minutes quoted above as
providing that Dinan was to earn compensation for rendering its
services to Agency through its employee, Mr. Hardtke, --a reading
that we find to be quite strained--we would be left in equipoise
as to the intended meaning of those minutes. This is because, on
the one hand, they provide that Mr. Hardtke was to earn compensa-
tion and that that compensation was to be paid to Dinan, and, on
the other hand, under that assumed reading, they provide incon-
sistently that Dinan was to earn compensation for rendering its
services to Agency through its employee, Mr. Hardtke. Conse-
quently, petitioners would have failed to establish that Dinan,
and not Mr. Hardtke, was to earn the compensation in question.
Based on the entire record before us, we find that petition-
ers failed to prove that Mr. Hardtke did not earn the income that
Agency paid to Dinan with respect to Mr. Hardtke's services to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011