Ernesto H. Monroy - Page 19

                                       - 19 -                                         
               Petitioner argues that the deposits to Interservice in 1991            
          could not have come from him because the amounts were not                   
          recorded as loans from shareholders on the books.  On brief,                
          petitioner's position is that the amounts in issue are loans from           
          his wife.  Petitioner supports this assertion by pointing to a              
          check from petitioner to his wife, which is purportedly a payment           
          on the loans owed to his wife.                                              
               Both G. Rodriguez and Esquivel testified that they traveled            
          to Mexico to meet with petitioner and his daughter.  G. Rodriguez           
          testified that the reason for the meeting was to "create backup"            
          for the transfers of money to petitioner and Interservice so that           
          it appeared that the money was not income to petitioner.                    
          Esquivel testified that the purpose of the trip was to compare              
          numbers.  G. Rodriguez testified that, while she and Esquivel               
          were in Mexico, petitioner gave instructions to record the                  
          amounts as transfers from a "Mexican Company".  Approximately               
          2 months after the trip to Mexico, Esquivel sent to Bradley a               
          letter listing the deposits to Interservice from Mexico.                    
          Esquivel did not indicate in the letter to Bradley that the                 
          deposits were loans.  On an Interservice ledger sheet, the                  
          amounts were listed as payable to a "Mexican Company" and                   
          Gabriela Monroy.  One of the deposits was listed as from Cable              
          Leon.                                                                       
               The evidence supports respondent's assertion that the                  
          deposits to Interservice were not loans but income to petitioner            




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011