- 38 -
net worth of the individual petitioners, such as through
the purchase of other assets. On the basis of the fact
that we have insufficient evidence by which to evaluate
respondent’s assertion and the fact that there is evidence
in the record that tends to support petitioners’ assertion,
we cannot accept respondent’s position that petitioners’
explanation of the lack of cash deposits is “patently
unreasonable”.
Respondent next asserts that petitioners’ decision to
rebuild the business after the fire supports respondent’s
determination of fraud. Respondent argues that petitioners
would not have rebuilt an uninsured building if the
business had been unprofitable. Petitioners maintain that
the business was losing money. Mr. Eddie Crabtree
testified that petitioners did not recover from the
insurance company because the insurance company filed for
bankruptcy during the same week that Justins burned.
Mr. Eddie Crabtree further testified that he consulted a
commercial real estate agent who recommended that it would
be easier to sell the property with a structure on it than
as bare land. We accept petitioners’ explanation for their
decision to rebuild after the fire. We do not agree with
respondent that it is an indication of fraud.
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011