- 39 -- 39 -
costs incurred in connection with K & H's construction projects,
he was unable to explain why he did not immediately remit the
entire amount of such proceeds to, or immediately expend them for
the benefit of, K & H.
With respect to the deposits at issue of Ms. Velilla's
funds, except for petitioner's self-serving, general, and
conclusory testimony on which we are unwilling to rely, there is
no evidence in the record that supports petitioners' contention
that those funds were held for corporate (i.e., K & H's) pur-
poses. The record does not even show whether or how those funds
were disbursed during each such year. What the record does
establish is that, with respect to the deposits at issue of Ms.
Velilla's construction loan proceeds, the contractor agreement
between Ms. Velilla and K & H did not authorize petitioner (1) to
deposit such proceeds into petitioners' accounts or (2) to retain
any portion of such proceeds for petitioners' own purposes. That
agreement specifically provided that disbursements from Ms.
Velilla's construction loan account were to be made "only to pay
for costs of labor on and materials for the Project pursuant to
plans and specifications submitted to and approved by Lender."
With respect to the deposit at issue of Ms. Velilla's checking
account funds, the record is silent regarding whether that
deposit was authorized and whether petitioners were authorized to
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011