- 37 -- 37 - during each of those years.27 With respect to the deposits at issue of K & H's construc- tion loan proceeds, the record establishes that Mr. Kabeiseman did not at any time during the years at issue (1) authorize peti- tioner to deposit such proceeds into petitioners' accounts, (2) know the amounts of such proceeds that petitioner so depos- ited, (3) authorize petitioner's practice of retaining a portion of such proceeds during each of those years and not using such portion to make payments to, or on behalf of, K & H, or (4) know the amounts of such proceeds that petitioner retained. We find petitioners' apparent reliance on the following testimony of Mr. Kabeiseman, in order to establish that the deposits at issue of the K & H construction loan proceeds were authorized, to be misplaced: Q Mr. Kabeiseman, you were aware of the * * * deposit of the loan draws to Mr. Harp's personal ac- count? A From Kabeiseman & Harp construction loans, yes, uh-huh. We are unable to find that the foregoing testimony establishes that Mr. Kabeiseman authorized petitioner to deposit K & H's construction loan proceeds into petitioners' accounts during the 27 Although Mr. Kabeiseman was generally responsible for prepar- ing K & H's checks to pay for corporate expenditures, the record does not show whether petitioner obtained the funds from the K & H checking account that he deposited into petitioners' accounts through actual checks drawn on that account or, if so, whether Mr. Kabeiseman prepared, or was otherwise aware of, any such K & H checks that were issued to petitioner.Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011