Charles R. Harp and April B. Harp - Page 32

                                                                               - 32 -- 32 -                                                                                
                              We are unwilling to accept either petitioners' schedules of                                                                                  
                    expenses or Ms. Harp's testimony as reliable evidence to support                                                                                       
                    petitioners' contention.  Petitioners' schedules of expenses,                                                                                          
                    like Ms. Harp's testimony about those schedules, are nothing more                                                                                      
                    than self-serving statements that the additional disbursements                                                                                         
                    from petitioners' accounts during the years at issue that are                                                                                          
                    reflected in those schedules were made to, or on behalf of, K & H                                                                                      
                    and Ms. Velilla.  Neither petitioners' schedules of expenses nor                                                                                       
                    Ms. Harp's testimony, which we found to be general, vague,                                                                                             
                    conclusory, and at times internally inconsistent, persuade us                                                                                          
                    that those additional disbursements were, in fact, made to, or on                                                                                      
                    behalf of, K & H and Ms. Velilla, rather than in payment of                                                                                            
                    petitioners' expenses.20  In this connection, Ms. Harp testified                                                                                       
                    that petitioners' schedules of expenses were prepared in reliance                                                                                      
                    on copies that petitioners were able to obtain of certain                                                                                              
                    supplier bills and canceled checks, which, she claims, indicated                                                                                       
                    thereon the purposes for which certain disbursements from                                                                                              


                    20  We note that, with respect to $9,689.80 of the additional                                                                                          
                    disbursements that petitioners claim they made during 1990 to, or                                                                                      
                    on behalf of, K & H and Ms. Velilla, they also claim that they                                                                                         
                    paid that same amount during that same year to Mr. Kabeiseman in                                                                                       
                    partial repayment of the $29,000 in Kabeiseman loans that peti-                                                                                        
                    tioner received in 1989.  The record establishes that the pay-                                                                                         
                    ments totaling $9,689.80 that petitioners made during 1990 were                                                                                        
                    made to Mr. Kabeiseman in partial repayment of the Kabeiseman                                                                                          
                    loans.  Thus, not only are petitioners wrong in contending that                                                                                        
                    those payments were made to, or on behalf of, K & H and Ms.                                                                                            
                    Velilla, they are counting those payments twice, once in advanc-                                                                                       
                    ing their argument with respect to the Kabeiseman loans and once                                                                                       
                    in advancing their argument with respect to the deposits of K &                                                                                        
                    H's and Ms. Velilla's funds.                                                                                                                           




Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011