-26-
Petitioners contend that the fact that they used an ice
chest to transport cash to Las Vegas establishes that they had a
large amount of cash on hand. Petitioners' proof is vague at
best. There is no credible evidence about the amount of cash in
the ice chest. Petitioners did not prove the denominations of
the bills in the bucket, grocery bag, or ice chest.
Petitioners contend that the $287,000 difference between the
listed liquid assets and the $590,000 subtotal for liquid assets
on a loan application dated April 15, 1985, shows that they had a
large cash hoard at that time. We disagree. The difference is a
mistake, not evidence of a cash hoard. Petitioners make a
similar mistake under nonliquid assets where they report that
$590,000 for liquid assets plus $80,000 for automobiles, and
$100,000 for furniture and personal property equals total assets
of $921,000.
g. Conclusion Regarding Cash Hoard Sources Alleged by
Petitioners
We conclude that petitioners vastly exaggerated the amount
of cash they received from these sources.
2. Respondent's Skim Formula
K.C. Urbon picked up the daily sheets and cash from the
saunas for 3 months in 1987. Pursuant to petitioner-husband's
instructions, K.C. Urbon reported 3/7 of petitioners' share of
the receipts to petitioners' bookkeeper. Applying the 3/7
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011