- 60 -
Ashland Oil and kept available to Kenmore so that Kenmore could
stay in business.
This $85,000 item is more than four times as large as the
next largest item in the notice of deficiency to Gleave. Gleave
testified as to the $85,000 item that he did “recall what that
was about”, even though the event was many years before the trial
in the instant case. If Gleave did recall what that was about,
then why did he promptly give us three conflicting stories under
oath? If the $85,000 had to be returned to its rightful owners,
then why did Kenmore not merely write checks to those owners,
rather than pass the money into Gleave’s hands? If Gleave spent
about $60,000 to buy a truck for Kenmore, then why did Kenmore
not show the truck (depreciation, investment credit) on its tax
return? If Gleave kept it hidden on the side, then (1) what was
to be gained, since Kenmore’s creditors would quickly see the
substantial check, and (2) what finally happened to the money?
After discounting Gleave’s conflicting testimony, we are
left with the fact that Kenmore paid the $85,000 to Gleave
because of Gleave’s decision that Kenmore should pay the money to
him. Thus, the record herein establishes that (1) Gleave
received the $85,000, and (2) the $85,000 came from Kenmore’s
Account, which is the source of many payments which constitute
income to Gleave. See DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 873;
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77. Gleave’s testimony
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011