- 30 -- 30 -
the payments made to, or on behalf of, K & H and Ms. Velilla
during each such year; and (2) whether any such deposits not
disbursed as payments to, or on behalf of, K & H and Ms. Velilla
(deposits that were not returned) are taxable and thus includible
in petitioners' income for each such year.18
With respect to the first dispute between the parties as to
whether the aggregate amount of the deposits into petitioners'
accounts during 1989 and 1990 of K & H's funds and Ms. Velilla's
funds exceeded the aggregate amount of the payments made to, or
on behalf of, K & H and Ms. Velilla during each of those years,
18 Respondent contends on brief (1) that the stipulated payments
to, or on behalf of, K & H do not include any payments to, or on
behalf of, Ms. Velilla and (2) that the deposits that were not
returned consist of (a) all of Ms. Velilla's funds and (b) an
unidentified portion of the aggregate amount of the deposits of K
& H's funds. Petitioners disagree and make no such distinctions
on brief with respect to K & H's funds and Ms. Velilla's funds.
As we understand petitioners' position, they maintain that any
payments made during the years at issue from Ms. Velilla's funds
that petitioner deposited into one of petitioners' accounts would
have been included as part of the payments that they made during
those years to, or on behalf of, K & H. We therefore construe
and treat petitioners' assertions on brief with respect to any
payments that they claim they made during the years at issue to,
or on behalf of, K & H as assertions that such payments were
payments to, or on behalf of, not only K & H, but also Ms.
Velilla. Since K & H contracted to build a house for Ms. Velilla
and was responsible for the costs incurred in connection with the
construction of that house, the payments that petitioners made
during the years at issue to, or on behalf of, K & H could have
included, as petitioners suggest, payments of some or all of Ms.
Velilla's funds that were deposited into one of petitioners'
accounts during those years. However, the record before us does
not enable us to identify (1) the nature of the payments made to,
or on behalf of, K & H, (2) the source of the deposits that were
used to make those payments, or (3) the source of the deposits
that were not returned.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011