- NEXTRECORD -
That [i.e., the statement in the Protest] was
basically overlooked. It was not -- it did not happen
that way. My -- what I showed you [referring to
petitioner's small, red, spiral notebook] is the way
that it actually happened. I just miscued that,
because he [petitioner's representative at the
examination level] handled most of the preparation of
this [the Protest], because -- and then I okayed it,
because he had the equipment to do this. He had a
computer. I didn't have access to this type stuff.
So I just merely overlooked that. It wasn't that
that is what happened. I didn't pick that up in
reading and proofreading. Okay, and he, himself,
thought that this was considered my appointment book,
as close as to what I was going to have to one. So
that is why this was even referenced to that, and even
in the same line, he comes right behind it, and said,
the book for customers and to list the income earned
for -- from his customers.
That is the way he took that. That is pretty much
the explanation on that misconstrue -- misconstrusion,
I should say.[14]
Petitioner contends that he maintained an accurate and
contemporaneous record of his income in his small, red, spiral
notebook. However, we are not convinced that this notebook was
contemporaneously maintained; we are also not convinced that the
entries in the notebook accurately reflect petitioner's barber
income.
First, we find it odd that one would attempt to recreate a
calendar by hand in a notebook when printed calendars are so
readily and inexpensively obtainable.
14 Petitioner's examination-level representative was present
throughout the trial of this case; however, he did not testify.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011