Don C. and Judy Montgomery - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         

             for this advance.  Accordingly, check No. 1621 does not                  
             constitute income to petitioners.                                        
                  Petitioners argue that check No. 1655, dated                        
             February 21, 1989, in the amount of $4,500, was issued to                
             repay Wholesale Fuels for cash advanced by Wholesale Fuels.              
             To support this claim, petitioners introduced a check                    
             drawn on the Wholesale Fuels account for $4,500 dated                    
             February 17, 1989.  This check is payable to First                       
             Interstate and was endorsed by H&B.                                      
                  We have already found that Mr. Petty periodically used              
             money in the Wholesale Fuels account to pay expenses                     
             incurred on behalf of H&B.  We therefore find that check                 
             No. 1655 represents a transfer of money between two                      
             accounts used by H&B.  Accordingly, we find that the                     
             proceeds of check No. 1655 do not constitute income to                   
             petitioners.                                                             
                  Also during 1989, petitioner signed two checks drawn                
             on H&B's First Interstate account and made payable to First              
             Interstate in the aggregate amount of $2,097.  Neither                   
             check bears any notation of its purpose, and the pegboard                
             ledger sheet on which these checks should appear was not                 
             introduced into evidence.  Petitioners have not provided                 
             any explanation of these checks.  There is therefore no                  
             basis in the record on which to reject respondent's                      





Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011